Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Hill Farming Schemes

Mr. Snadden: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for grants have been received under the Hill Farming Act, 1946; what is the extent of the area involved; and what is the total estimated cost.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): Proposals have been submitted for 667 hill farming land improvement schemes in Scotland. Of these 84 have been withdrawn or rejected as ineligible. The remaining 583 proposed schemes cover an area of 1,685,000 acres and the total estimated cost of the works is £1,785,000.

Mr. Snadden: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that there is considerable criticism in Scotland regarding the delay in the approval of these schemes, and will he look into this question of reviewing the machinery in order to get quicker results and so encourage the people who are putting forward these schemes?

Mr. Fraser: I will look at that point, but I should tell the hon. Gentleman that a considerable amount of work under these schemes is now in progress—indeed work worth in all, perhaps, £300,000.

Sir John Barlow: Can the Minister tell us the actual acreage which is likely to be improved from an agricultural point of view through drainage, liming, etc?

Mr. Fraser: I should think the acreage I have just stated, which is 1,685,000.

Agricultural Executive Committees

Mr. Snadden: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the acreage now being farmed by the area executive committees in Scotland; and what were the comparative figures in respect of the years 1947, 1946 and 1945.

Mr. T. Fraser: Agricultural executive committees in the years 1945, 1946, and 1947 farmed acreages of 7,333, 7,295, and 4,550 respectively. Since 1st December, 1947, the responsibility has been taken over by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland and the acreage at the present date has been reduced to 1,308.

Mr. Snadden: Will the Under-Secretary of State undertake to publish the accounts regarding the operations of these committees up to the latest available date?

Mr. Fraser: I shall have to think that over.

Mr. MacLeod: Will the hon. Gentleman say what acreage is hill farming land?

Mr. Fraser: No, I cannot give that figure.

Sewage Sludge

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost of using the sewage of Scotland for fertilising the soil, taking into consideration the cost of artificial fertilising material, and the shortage of natural manure.

Mr. T. Fraser: I regret that no figures of cost of the kind desired by the hon. and gallant Gentleman are available.

Sir T. Moore: Why not? Surely the hon. Gentleman must be aware that after the initial capital cost this process would do more to stimulate the productivity of our soil than any other method, without any drain on our dollar reserves and without any outside assistance?

Mr. Fraser: The possibilities of land improvement by the utilisation of sewage sludge are not at all certain. The Agricultural Research Council which has been undertaking a review of sewage sludge compost has been doing a good deal of work on this question, but it is impossible to give the information for which the hon. and gallant Member asks.

Local Government Law (Committee)

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why in appointing a committee to review the whole field of local government in Scotland, he has only appointed two political representatives on a committee consisting of 14 members; and why no one, other than a prominent local government official, has been appointed from any part of the West of Scotland or North-East Scotland.

Mr. T. Fraser: The task of the committee is the technical one of consolidating local government law. Apart from the chairman and departmental members, the committee consists of two members of this House and one from another place, and six representatives, including three from the West of Scotland, nominated by the associations of local authorities. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the committee is adequate and fully qualified to carry out the task which has been allotted to it.

Mr. Carmichael: As this Committee has been appointed with a view to facilitating consolidation and securing simplicity, uniformity and conciseness in regard to to the laws of Scotland, is my hon. Friend satisfied that the legal profession is the best profession to simplify enactments associated with the local government of Scotland? If so, why were two lay Members from the City of Edinburgh appointed to the committee and the rest of Scotland ignored?

Mr. Fraser: I should have thought that my right hon. Friend would be obliged to appoint a committee of persons who would be likely to undertake the task allotted to them to the satisfaction of everyone concerned. It may be true that he has appointed to the committee two Members of this House who come from the East of Scotland, but I do not think they should suffer any disability on that account.

Rural Housing

Sir William Darling: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of new houses provided in rural areas in Scotland, from public funds and by private persons respectively, for the accommodation of those in the agricultural industry in the years 1946–47 and in 1948 to the nearest date.

Mr. T. Fraser: As the answer involves figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this question of the provision of rural houses plays a very considerable part, according to the Health Department reports, in the fight against tuberculosis?

Mr. Fraser: I agree. It would also play a considerable part in the fight against tuberculosis in the urban areas—perhaps a more important part than in the rural areas.

Following is the answer:

The following table shows the number of houses completed in county areas by local authorities, the Scottish Special Housing Association and private enterprise during 1946, 1947 and the first five months of 1948.

Period.
Number of houses completed.


Local Authorities and the S.S.H.A.
Private Enterprise
Total


(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)


1946
605
267
872


1947
2,201
514
2,715


1948 (to end of May).
2,043
314
2,357


Total
4,849
1,095
5,944

1. The figures given refer to the whole areas of the various county councils concerned. It is not possible to give separate figures for "rural areas" or for the agricultural industry.

2. According to a return from local authorities, however, a total of 916 houses completed since the end of the war have been let to agricultural workers. In addition, an unknown number of houses has been let, not only in county areas but in small burghs, to workers connected with agriculture and ancillary trades.

3. The figures given in column (3) comprise houses built by private enterprise either without assistance, or with assistance under Part II of the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, 1938, for the replacement of unsatisfactory houses on farms.

Teachers

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children have become liable for additional education through the raising of the school-leaving age; and what steps have been taken to provide the additional teachers in schools to meet the demands.

Mr. T. Fraser: The number liable for additional education is 73,300. With allowance for those who would have remained at school voluntarily, the total increase to be provided for will be about 60,000. The additional teachers required, to the number of fully 4,000, have been recruited under the Emergency Scheme.

Sir T. Moore: Can the hon. Gentleman say what prospect there is in the near future that these children will receive the education that was envisaged in the 1944 Act?

Mr. Fraser: I think the prospects are fairly good.

Non-Traditional Houses

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is intended to continue the programme of nontraditional house building in Scotland.

Mr. T. Fraser: It is intended that nontraditional houses should still be available. The arrangement under which the Department of Health for Scotland approved programmes of non-traditional house building in Scotland ceased at 31st December, 1947, when the additional subsidy for this type of house became no longer available. In future, local authorities will, however, be free to select non-traditional houses where the price is comparable with traditional building.

Mr. Willis: Is my hon. Friend aware that unless he gives some definite indication of the policy to be pursued, in terms of numbers of houses to be built of a specific kind, there will be quite a large amount of unemployment in the firms at present engaged in this work?

Mr. Fraser: I could hardly accept that. The Act of 1946 provided that until the end of 1947 an additional subsidy should be given in respect of non-traditional type houses, because it was generally appreciated then that the cost of building up the work on and production of those houses would be considerable. But now, if the claims made for the non-traditional type house are to be justified, surely they can only be justified in their being able to compete on an equal basis with the traditional type house. I should have thought that local authorities should be

free to select traditional or non-traditional type houses, having regard to the cost.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be better if the Government returned to their traditional policy now?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR PENSIONS (PARENTS)

Sir W. Darling: asked the Minister of Pensions to give an estimate of the annual cost of providing pensions to parents, residing in Scotland, whose sons or daughters were killed in the 1939–45 war.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Blenkinsop): I have no figures showing how many parents whose sons or daughters were killed in the 1939–45 war now reside in Scotland, but I estimate the annual cost of parents pensions arising out of that war now in payment in Scotland at approximately £250,000.

Sir W. Darling: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to find out the number who would be likely to make application for such a pension? I believe the number would be very small, and in view of the recommendation made formerly by the hon. Gentleman himself, among others, that such pensions should be paid, will he collect these statistics.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Chat is another question.

Sir W. Darling: I am aware that it is another question; that is why I put it.

Sir W. Darling: asked the Minister of Pensions how many pensions are being paid to parents of men and women who were killed in the 1939–45 war; at what annual cost; and how many such pension claims have been made and refused.

Mr. Blenkinsop: 54,300 parent's pensions have been paid in respect of the 1939–45 war and 46,600 of these are still in payment at an annual cost of £1,820,000. In all, 107,400 claims have been made, of which 53,100 have been refused. In the great majority of the cases in which claims were refused, the applicants have been advised that they


have established their right to a parent's pension if their circumstances should worsen in the future.

Sir W. Darling: In view of these figures, would the hon. Gentleman consider advising his right hon. Friend to extend the payment of pensions to the parents of sons or daughters who fell in the last war, irrespective of the number?

Mr. Blenkinsop: No, not in view of the series of changes made in this very scheme, even during the last few weeks.

Sir W. Darling: Then I take it the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to recommend the abolition of the Means Test?

Mr. Willis: Do these figures make allowance for the concession announced last week, and if not, what difference does it make?

Mr. Blenkinsop: No, they do not include the applications which are still to come in as a result of the changes announced last week.

Mr. McGovern: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the standards allowed to parents in need of pensions are so miserably low that a review should be undertaken regularly of these standards in order to raise them?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am certainly aware that the standards were very low before this Government came into office. I am also aware that they have been very radically changed since this Government came into office.

Mr. McGovern: That is not true.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPANESE OFFICERS (ALLEGED WAR CRIMES)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for War why Major General Kinoshita and Sergeant-Major Yoshiga, of the Japanese Army, who were handed over to the British authorities as war criminals, having been in charge of Bridge House, Shanghai, during the war where numbers of British nationals were tortured and starved, have been released by order of His Majesty's Government.

Colonel Wheatley: asked the Secretary of State for War why Major General

Kinoshita and Sergeant-Major Yoshigi were released by the Hong Kong authorities without trial or punishment for the brutalities committed by them in Shanghai against British subjects, Chinese and other allies during the war.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): These men were released because it proved impossible, despite extensive investigations over a considerable period, to obtain evidence of personal complicity sufficient to bring them to trial. The decision to drop the case was made after careful consideration by the Deputy Judge Advocate General in the Far East, who is responsible for the preparation and prosecution of war crimes cases.

Mr. Teeling: Will the right hon. Gentleman state definitely that it was not because our Attorney-General felt that these trials must not go on after 31st March? Can he further explain, in view of the fact that there were three men in this case and the Chinese tried the third, and the fact that most of these people were appallingly tortured, worse than the people in Belsen—most of them were allies and not necessarily British—why we have not asked the Chinese whether they would like to try the other two, as they gave a life sentence to the third?

Mr. Shinwell: I should require notice of of the last part of the supplementary question. I have no information about the attitude of the Chinese Government in matters of this sort. As regards the first part of the supplementary question, the sole reason why these cases have not been proceeded with was because it was impossible to obtain sufficient evidence, in the judgment of the Deputy Judge Advocate General, and it was unwise to keep these people in prison indefinitely without trial.

Mr. Eden: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the statement in Question 12 is correct, that these officers were in charge of Bridge House, Shanghai; and since it is notorious that appalling tortures were inflicted on prisoners there, how can it be that there is no evidence available?

Mr. Shinwell: I do not quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of what occurred. I have no doubt there is some evidence in that connection. All I can say is that I am advised by the


responsible legal authority as to the action that should be taken, and I can go no further than that.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this has caused a great deal of indignation among a great many people not only in Shanghai but among those who have returned to this country, and in view of the fact that there is local opinion that a great deal of evidence was not sought for which could have been obtained, will he re-open the question?

Mr. Shinwell: I am conscious of the indignation that naturally arises because of inability to proceed with these charges, and I share it to a large extent, as do other hon. Members, but to re-open the case would be quite a different matter.

Mr. Lipson: Will the right hon. Gentleman make available to hon. Members the evidence on which the Deputy Judge Advocate General decided that it was inadvisable to proceed with the case.

Mr. Shinwell: I hardly think that is customary.

Colonel Wheatley: Is the Minister satisfied in his own conscience that these inhuman creatures should be allowed to go free?

Mr. Shinwell: My view is that people responsible for such crimes ought not to be allowed to go free. That is merely a general principle. Whether we ought to proceed with charges on the basis of insufficient evidence is another matter.

General Sir George Jeffreys: Is the Minister aware that this treatment of this case will inevitably be construed in the East as weakness on the part of the British Government, and will not that have a most unfortunate effect in the event of future trouble?

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, but on the other hand if we had proceeded without sufficient evidence and the charges had failed, there might have been serious repercussions.

Mr. Teeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the various sworn reports of people who were tortured in that camp are not sufficient evidence?

Mr. Shinwell: After all, I have to take the advice of the legal people in this matter.

Mr. Teeling: In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's replies, I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Cadet Force

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the progress of the Army Cadet organisation; what assistance is being provided for officers' uniforms and equipment; whether working relations are being established with local Territorial commands; and if encouragement is being extended to Army Cadet recruitment in public and secondary schools.

Mr. Shinwell: I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir P. Hannon: Is the right hon. Gentleman giving all the encouragement possible in our secondary schools to persuade boys to join the Cadet organisation?

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, certainly. I think the hon. Gentleman will find from the very long answer which I propose to circulate that we are extending all possible encouragement.

Sir T. Moore: In circulating this answer, will the right hon. Gentleman divide it in order to show the position in Scotland, in view of the most honourable part that Scotland has played in this movement?

Mr. Shinwell: This is not the sort of statement that we break down nationally.

Brigadier Head: Is the Secretary of State aware that the best encouragement to these boys is if the subsequent experience of others who have joined the Armed Forces on call-up convinces them that their Army Cadet service is of real use and advantage to them when they are called up?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not unaware of that.

Following is the statement:

The size of the Army Cadet Force was stabilized between July, 1947, and January, 1948, at about 100,000. For this satisfactory figure much credit is due to the public spirited voluntary work of thousands of Army Cadet Force officers and officials.

The strength of the Junior Training Corps has risen from 33,000 to about 38,000 since the end of the war. It is hoped that the Junior Training Corps, together with school units of other Cadet Forces will now merge successfully into the recently announced Combined Cadet Force, which offers better conditions than those previously offered to school contingents. It is also hoped that, in the interests both of the nation and of the boys themselves, many schools without cadets will now start Combined Cadet Force Contingents.

The efficiency of both the Junior Training Corps and of the Army Cadet Force has risen during the last two years. As an indication of the effects of cadet training, ex-cadets of the Junior Training Corps and Army Cadet Force, after undergoing selection processes, and after open competition, secured 80 per cent. of the vacancies in the January, 1948, intake into the Royal Military Academy; ex-cadets secured 75 per cent. of the vacancies in a recent intake into Officer Cadet Training Units; 20 out of every 21 cadets with Certificate A who join the Army are either under training as officers or have earned promotion as non-commissioned officers within a few months of joining. The benefits of cadet training do not cease at the age of 18, since ex-cadets can earn the right to shoulder responsibility in the Army while still young, and thus gain valuable experience, no matter what career they may later follow.

Officers are provided on joining with free uniform and personal equipment, and free replacements are provided as required. The Army Council is encouraging the establishment of the closest possible links between the Territorial Army and the Cadets, and at the same time the religious, cultural and welfare aspects of training in the Army Cadet Force are not being neglected. Every possible encouragement is being given to the formation of cadet contingents in schools. It is to the advantage of the nation, of the boys, and of the schools to give cadet training a small allowance of school time.

Weekend Camps (Expenses Allowance)

Mr. Vane: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the discouraging attendance at weekend camps resulting from the effect of War Office

letter 30/Misc/3399 of 23rd August, 1947; and whether he will arrange that men will not be expected to pay for their rations out of their training expenses allowance when periods of training exceed 24 hours.

Mr. Shinwell: The arrangements for attendance at weekend camps are at present under examination.

Mr. Vane: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the training expenses allowance which a man receives at a camp of less than 48 hours is less than Army rates of pay, and that when he is receiving this allowance he is expected to provide his own rations? Will he also remember that normally it is impossible for a man to bring rations from home for a period of 36 hours and that, in consequence, men do not go to camp?

Mr. Shinwell: I am aware of the alleged defects in the present system, and that is precisely why it is under examination.

Discharge by Purchase

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for War why copies of the document, giving particulars of conditions of release by purchase, have not been made available to units in M.E.L.F.

Mr. Shinwell: The War Office memorandum on discharge by purchase was sent to M.E.L.F. at the same time as to other Commands. Owing, however, to the wide area covered by this Command there would necessarily be some delay before the instructions reached all units.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that by now the instructions should have reached all units, and, if I send him the name of a unit which has not yet received the instructions, will he take steps to see that they get there?

Mr. Shinwell: I should be glad to have the information. My information is that by now the instructions should have reached all units.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for War why he has refused to make available to hon. Members copies of the leaflet setting out conditions of release from the Army by purchase.

Mr. Shinwell: Pending the issue of complete instructions, copies of the War Office memorandum giving administrative details about discharge by purchase were placed in the Library of this House. When complete instructions, which are now in preparation, are promulgated, copies will be placed in the Library.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the document, a copy of which is now in the Library, cannot also be made available to hon. Members who desire it for the purpose of advising their constituents?

Mr. Shinwell: By all means. A number of hon. Members have already asked for, and been provided with, copies. If the hon. Member wishes to have a copy, I will let him have one.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last week his office twice refused to let me have copies of this document and, in view of what he has said, will he be good enough to reverse this instruction?

Mr. Shinwell: Now that the hon. Member has asked me for a copy, I will see that he gets one.

Lieutenant-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War when regulations will be issued to enable men on supplementary service engagements to obtain discharge by purchase.

Mr. Shinwell: I hope that an announcement will be made on this matter shortly.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can my right hon. Friend say why it is necessary, even in the first instance, to differentiate between men on Regular service engagements and men on supplementary service engagement, many of whom have long periods of service on Regular engagements?

Mr. Shinwell: The reason for the differentiation is that there happens to be a difference.

Drivers (Civilian Clothes)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for War in what circumstances other ranks are permitted, or required, to wear civilian clothes while driving motor cars on duty; from what source

such clothes have been supplied; and at whose expense.

Mr. Shinwell: In special circumstances, when it is considered desirable, non-commissioned officers and other ranks can be required to wear civilian clothes at duty. In these cases the clothes are provided at public expense either from ordnance stocks or if necessary by purchase.

Sir J. Mellor: Who provides the coupons for this extravagance? Will the right hon. Gentleman say what are the special circumstances to which he refers, and who are driven about by these soldiers?

Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. Member wants an example, one is the special investigation branch of the Corps of Royal Military Police.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that is the only instance? Is not he himself driven about in this way?

Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. Member is getting at me, that is a different matter. If he asks whether the driver who drives the car which I use is in mufti, the answer is "Yes," because unless I am engaged on strictly military duties—visiting a Command or a military depot, or some official ceremony—I prefer that he should be dressed in mufti.

Sir J. Mellor: Is not the King's uniform good enough for the driver of the car of the Secretary of State for War?

Mr. Shinwell: I have as high a regard for the King's uniform as the hon. Member.

Air-Commodore Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman has never worn it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY OFFICERS (RESIGNATIONS)

Mr. Vane: asked the Secretary of State for War what recent regulations have been published with the object of limiting the circumstances in which a Territorial officer may be allowed to resign his commission.

Mr. Shinwell: Instructions were issued during May, 1947, that for the time being application by officers to resign from the Territorial Army could not be considered,


except in certain special cases; those who were unable, or did not wish, to continue their Territorial Army obligations could apply to transfer to the Territorial Army Reserve of Officers.

Mr. Vane: Does that answer mean that if an officer thinks that for business reasons he has difficulty in fulfilling his military commitments, that will be taken as an adequate excuse for his transfer to the Reserve?

Mr. Shinwell: Offhand, I should say "No."

Sir Ronald Ross: Does this restriction about resigning and the compulsory continuation of service apply to that part of the United Kingdom to which the National Service Act does not apply?

Mr. Shinwell: The Territorial Army is common to the United Kingdom and to Ulster.

Sir R. Ross: Does this restriction apply?

Mr. A. R. W. Low: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will amplify his earlier answer? I take it that there is no question of compelling old Territorial Army officers to remain on the active list, and that the only thing the Minister is trying to do is to keep them on the reserve list?

Mr. Shinwell: All I am trying to do is to retain the services of qualified Territorial officers.

Mr. Low: But not in their active capacity? Surely the Minister is not forcing old Territorial Army officers to remain on the active list today, because that is a completely novel idea?

Mr. Shinwell: I have no intention of retaining the services of officers who are not qualified.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS OF WAR (CREDIT BALANCES)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the credit balances of prisoners of war released to civilian status in agriculture will be paid to them in this country, in order to reimburse those prisoners of war who have no intention to return to Germany.

Mr. Shinwell: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) on 16th December, and also to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) on 8th March, of which I am sending him copies.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (COMMITTEE)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning which members of the Committee appointed under the chairmanship of Sir George Schuster have any special knowledge or experience of agriculture and country planning.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. King): This Committee is not intended to be representative of the various interests affected by town and country planning. My right hon. Friends thought we should get a better result by appointing a Committee of persons with experience of public affairs. I do not doubt that the Committee will take evidence from many quarters and that it will have particular regard to the interests of agriculture and country planning.

Mr. Vane: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the agricultural industry is of the opinion that the Committee could achieve better results if more of its members knew something about agriculture, and is he not aware that the majority of the members of this Committee, though they probably have a very wide knowledge of town and suburban planning, know little of the countryside?

Mr. King: I do not accept the last remark made by the hon. Gentleman, but the purpose of the Committee is educational—to discuss training.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Overlapping Benefits (Regulations)

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of National Insurance on what date he will lay the National Insurance (Overlapping Benefits) Regulations, 1948, before this House.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Steele): These regulations were made in provisional form on 10th June and were laid before the House on 15th June. The provisional regulations are identical in terms with a draft of permanent regulations which is now being examined by the National Insurance Advisory Committee in accordance with the provisions of the National Insurance Act.

Sir I. Fraser: Is it not a fact that only the permanent regulations, and not the provisional ones, can properly be laid, and can the hon. Gentleman say when he will move them?

Mr. Steele: In the time remaining before the appointed day, the Committee could not complete an examination of all the regulations, so we used this power to bring in provisional regulations because we had to have something ready for 5th July. The Committee is, at the moment, examining the permanent regulations, and they will be laid, with the Committee's report, before the House.

Sir I. Fraser: Are we to understand that only the permanent regulations will be effective?

Mr. Steele: The regulations which are made at the moment are effective as from 5th July, and they will remain effective, and can remain effective, up to three months after the National Insurance Advisory Committee has reported. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Committee is examining these permanent regulations at the moment, and we are anxious to put them before the House as soon as possible.

Housekeepers

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of National Insurance, in view of the fact that a householder can insure his housekeeper against common law and statutory liability for accident for 6s. per annum with an insurance office, why is he compelled to pay £9 2s. a year to the National Insurance Scheme for that risk, particulars of which have been sent him; and if he will make regulations varying these payments.

Mr. Steele: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The contribution payable

under the Industrial Injuries Act in respect of a woman over 18 is 6d. a week. The figure of £9 2s. quoted by the hon. Member is presumably obtained by adding the sum of 3s. weekly which is payable as the employer's contribution under the National Insurance Act, and has no connection with industrial injuries.

Sir W. Smithers: Can the Minister explain why, under private enterprise, one could insure these risks for about 6d. a week, and, under National Insurance, it is about £9 a year?

Staff and Buildings

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of National Insurance what is the required establishment of personnel and buildings for commencing operations on 5th July; and what is the present position.

Mr. Steele: The estimated number of staff required to commence operations on 5th July, 1948, is 32,380. On 1st June, 1948, the number of staff was 28,852. The balance of about 3,500 will be in post by 5th July, 1948. As regards buildings, the central office at Newcastle is complete; and head offices have also been opened in each region in England and in Edinburgh and Cardiff. About 1,000 local offices were projected. Not quite all of these have yet been obtained or opened and owing to difficulties in obtaining premises, some of the offices have had to be sub-divided. The actual total of separate local offices open on 5th July will be 992. Not all these offices will be complete or in the most convenient places, but rectification will proceed as suitable premises become available. In addition, especially to cover certain rural areas, some 200 offices will be open on one or more days a week, according to need. In the relatively small number of places where the Ministry are temporarily unable to secure local offices the business will be transacted from the nearest convenient centre.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware, that, in accordance with my speech on 2nd November, 1944, National Insurance will come into operation on 5th July, and with it, national chaos?

Mr. Steele: I am happy in this respect that the hon. Gentleman is increasing his score of errors.

Widows

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many widows will be unable to qualify for pension as a statutory right under the new scheme on 5th July, 1948; and whether any provision is made for these women apart from national assistance.

Mr. Steele: In reply to the first part of the Question, I regret that information is not available in the form asked for by my hon. Friend. In reply to the second part, there are various schemes outside National Insurance; for example, the war pensions scheme and occupational pensions schemes such as that for the police, which make provision for widows. It would, of course, be open to any widow to apply for national assistance if she is in need after 5th July, whether or not other provision has been made for her either under the National Insurance Scheme or otherwise.

Mr. Lipson: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of these widows object very strongly to applying for national assistance, and will he not consider whether provision cannot be made for them under the National Insurance Scheme?

Mr. Steele: Of course, the position under the National Insurance Scheme, so far as widows are concerned, is set out in the special leaflet dealing with them, but we are hoping that, with the abolition of the old Poor Law, there will be a new approach to this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Hostel, Featherstone

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: asked the Minister of Labour whether a decision has yet been reached on the future of the hostel at Brinsford Lodge, Featherstone, in the county of Stafford; and whether he will give an assurance that when this hostel is taken over by his Department no attempt will be made either to abolish the wet canteen or the married quarters.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): The position is being reconsidered. At the moment I cannot say more than that we shall do our best to cause as little inconvenience as possible to existing residents.

Strike, Coventry

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Labour how long the official strike at Motor Panels, Ltd., Coventry, has lasted; and what steps he has taken to bring about a settlement.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I understand that II welders ceased work on 29th January. Four of these were subsequently discharged by the firm as redundant, and a further 180 workers ceased work in sympathy but resumed work on 23rd February. Efforts by this Department to assist in resolving the difficulty were unfortunately unsuccessful, and the dispute was referred to the National Arbitration Tribunal. The award of the Tribunal has not yet been issued.

Mr. Edelman: In view of the damage done to all concerned in this protracted strike, which has gone on for nearly six months, will my right hon. Friend do something to speed up the machinery of conciliation?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The National Arbitration Tribunal is an independent body. It has been set up with powers passed by this House, not during the period of this Government but previously; it is a completely independent body, and it is not supposed to be interfered with by the Government or anyone else. That is the difficulty, but I have had inquiries made about this to see if we can help.

Mr. McCorquodale: Am I to understand that the Minister objects to the fact that the Tribunal is an independent body?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir. All I said was that this House would object to any interference by anyone in the work of that Tribunal.

Unemployed Persons, Liverpool

Mr. Keenan: asked the Minister of Labour how many men have been sent from the Liverpool employment exchanges, during the last twelve months, to the firm of Rylands Bros. Ltd., wire manufacturers, and the Whitecross Co. Ltd., wire rope manufacturers, both of Warrington.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Figures for the last twelve months are not available. Since 1st December, 1947, 263 men from the


Liverpool employment exchanges have been submitted to Ryland Bros., Limited, of whom 169 were engaged. During the same period, 67 men were submitted to Whitecross Company Limited, of whom 37 were engaged.

Mr. Keenan: Will the Minister reconsider the question of sending unemployed persons to these firms in Warrington? The wages paid to these men when they get there are £3 plus 28s.—£4 8s. 0d. a week—and out of that they have expenses. Will the Minister discontinue sending anyone from Liverpool to that employment until they are properly paid for the job?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I cannot accept that they are improperly paid for the job. They are paid the rates which have been agreed by both sides in the industry. With regard to the excessive train fares from Liverpool to those works, I understand the employers pay any excess over 5s. a week.

Mr. Keenan: Will the Minister inquire whether the figure of £4 8s. which I have given him is all they get and that expenses have to be taken from it? No married man can afford to go to Warrington on those conditions.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am quite prepared to look sympathetically into the particular case which my hon. Friend has brought up. We do not wish to impose hardship, particularly on married men, and I shall welcome receiving the details from him.

Football Pool Clerks

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that employment as football pool clerks is being offered at employment exchanges to rehabilitation trainees; whether those who refuse this kind of employment will be penalised; approximately how many have been placed in these posts; and for how long they will continue.

Mr. Ness Edwards: It would be quite wrong for the exchanges to refrain from bringing these vacancies to the notice of disabled persons for whom other more essential work is not available. I have no statistics showing the numbers who have availed themselves of these opportunities, nor can I forecast how long the jobs will

last. I have heard no suggestion of penalisation, but, if the hon. Member will let me know more precisely what he has in mind, I will make inquiries.

Mr. Sorensen: Are we to take it that the principle is accepted that a man can refuse this kind of employment on ethical grounds and will not be penalised for it?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The matter of penalties is one not really for the Ministry of Labour but for the Ministry of National Insurance, but it has been stated that in no circumstances will a man be compelled to take any job against which he has a conscientious objection.

Cotton Industry (Women Workers)

Mr. Randall: asked the Minister of Labour if he will consider, in an effort to back up the cotton recruitment drive, asking employers in other trades to release women who are willing to enter the cotton industry.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir; this is already being done and many non-textile employers are exhibiting recruiting posters on their premises.

Mr. Randall: Can the Minister give any report of progress, and will he give the number so far recruited?

Mr. Ness Edwards: This campaign started two months ago and I hope that in the course of a month we shall be able to report to the House what success it has had.

Lewisham

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Labour what was the number of unemployed persons registered at the Lewisham employment exchange on the last available date.

Mr. Ness Edwards: 802 at 14th June.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC CORPORATIONS (SHORT TITLES)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to ensure that, in the creation of any public statutory corporation, the titles given to these bodies will be so chosen as to avoid duplication of the initial letters by more than one such body, in order to avoid unnecessary public confusion.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): This point will be borne in mind. But the short titles commonly used by these bodies are a matter for their own discretion and need not be identical with their full statutory designation.

Mr. Cooper: Does the Prime Minister realise the confusion which is already being caused to the public by the use of the initials B.E.A. both for British European Airways and the British Electricity Authority, and could he take some steps to encourage one or the other of those authorities to discontinue the use of these letters? Further, could he take steps to see that in future similar duplication does not arise?

The Prime Minister: The question of what names either people or authorities are called is a matter for them. I am quite sure that they will take steps to avoid any ambiguity. There is no need always to use the initials; a very good example has been set by British Railways.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Could not the letter "E" be omitted?

Oral Answers to Questions — REGIONAL DEFENCE ARRANGEMENTS

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister (1) if he will give an assurance that, in spite of the existence of joint Anglo-American defence arrangements, the West European military alliance and the recent declaration of His Majesty's Ambassador in Washington to the effect that this country had taken sides with the U.S.A. against the U.S.S.R., his announcement on 6th March, 1947, to the effect that war between this country and either the U.S.A. or the U.S.S.R. could equally be disregarded in considering the policy of this country still holds good; and
(2) whether he will assure the House that the emergency plan for joint action in case of hostilities with the Soviet Union, in Berlin or elsewhere, agreed upon during the visit to Washington in April of Lieut.-General Sir Leslie Hollis, Deputy Military Secretary of the Cabinet, does not impose any obligation on this country to go to war if the United States enters into military conflict with the Soviet Union.

The Prime Minister: The policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to security continues to be based upon their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations. I cannot undertake to say in advance how these obligations would operate if an act of aggression occurred. Meanwhile, His Majesty's Government naturally reserve their right to conclude arrangements for regional defence based on Article 51 of the Charter. Regional arrangements for defence already exist, as my hon. Friend is aware, in Eastern Europe. There is no defence agreement between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government, though relations between the services and staffs are, of course, close and cordial.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is the Prime Minister aware that the arrangements referred to in these two Questions are regarded in the United States as automatically committing this country to go to war if the United States were to go to war with the Soviet Union in any part of the world? Is that impression correct, or is it a wrong impression?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware that that impression is prevalent in the United States of America, and I really cannot correct every impression which gets in the minds of another country or of hon. Members of this House.

Mr. Eden: Could the Prime Minister say whether he has any recent information as to how these defence arrangements are working in South-Eastern Europe?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Imported Motor Cars (Re-export)

Mr. Donner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cars have been brought into this country on condition that they are re-exported, and, in fact, not so taken out again but sold in the United Kingdom during the last 12 months.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): It is not yet known how many of these cars have been sold, but since 1st March last some 115 cars imported under the touring regulations have been reported as overdue for re-exportation.

Mr. Donner: In view of the relatively small number, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer state why three members of the Government, during a Debate on this subject, refused to give the figure, implied that it was substantial, and thereby grossly misled the House?

Sir S. Cripps: I regard that figure as very substantial.

Sterling Area (Dollar Pool)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what demands, in excess of contributions, will be made by the sterling area upon the dollar pool during the present year.

Sir S. Cripps: It would not be wise for me to try to forecast what the balance for the year will eventually be. But I am well satisfied, from the course of day-to-day consultations with the sterling area Governments, that they are all, like ourselves, doing their utmost to help ease the strain on the central reserves.

Mr. Shepherd: Are we to understand from the Chancellor's reply that the Government are satisfied that there will be no leakage from the sterling area during this year and that they have not committed themselves to any repayment of balances which will have the effect of causing a drain upon our dollar resources?

Sir S. Cripps: I could never be satisfied that there will be no leakages, because that is an almost impossibly optimistic view, but I think we have very largely reduced the chances of leakages, and there will be no releases of sterling that will affect the dollar balances beyond those agreed sums which the House knows about already in the agreements which have been arrived at.

National Savings

Mr. W. Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the net position in respect of national savings to the nearest date for the new savings year, including adjustments in respect of release benefit accounts.

Sir S. Cripps: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Shepherd: As the answer is probably long and may be disappointing can the Chancellor say what reason he adduces for the lamentable fall in national savings at the present time?

Sir S. Cripps: I think it is part of the conditions in the country—the desire to spend more money than some people have available in their wages.

Following is the reply:


NATIONAL SAVINGS.


APRIL 1ST-JUNE 12TH, 1948.


Excluding Services Release Benefits Accounts.



Receipts.
Repayments.



£000
£000


Savings Certificates
24,800
26,800


Defence Bonds
8,940
9,160 (a)


Post Office Savings Bank.
78,670
80,496


Trustee Savings Banks.
55,352
46,389



167,762
162,845


Net Savings
£4,917,000




Including Services Release Benefits Accounts.



Receipts.
Repayments.



£000
£000


Savings Certificates
24,800
26,800


Defence Bonds
8,940
9,160 (a)


Post Office Savings Bank.
78,673
92,738


Trustee Savings Banks.
55,352
46,389



167,765
175,087


Net Dis-saving
£7,322,000


(a) Excluding £26,131,659 Defence Bonds repaid on maturity.

Uncollected Surtax

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount, to date, of uncollected Surtax.

Sir S. Cripps: I cannot give a current figure, but the hon. Member will find information for the year to 30th June, 1947, in the Inland Revenue Appropriation Accounts for 1946–47. Information for the year to 30th June, 1948, will appear in the Appropriation Accounts early next year.

Sir W. Smithers: Does not the Chancellor realise that it is very convenient not give the figure? Does he not also realise that if he breaks the law "Thou shalt not steal," that law will break him?

Peso-Sterling Cross Rate

Mr. W. Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect of the recent action of the Argentine Government regarding the peso-sterling cross rate on financial agreements concluded between the two countries.

Sir S. Cripps: The recent action by the Argentine Government does not contravene the terms of our Trade and Payments Agreement with Argentina. The possible effects on our balance of payments with Argentina are at present under examination.

Mr. W. Fletcher: In view of the very far-reaching effect it must have, not only on the purchase of food and the export drive, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman or the Minister of Food or the President of the Board of Trade make some statement to this House soon on this unilateral action?

Sir S. Cripps: As I have said, the matter is now under examination.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As this institutes a free cross rate, can the Chancellor also give an assurance that the examination will include its effects on the triangular trade between ourselves, the sterling area and Argentine?

Sir S. Cripps: It is under examination in all the effects it has.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman has concluded this examination, will it be possible for him to take any steps, in view of the fact that, although this causes grave injury, he says it is within the letter of the agreement?

Sir S. Cripps: I must wait until I see the results of the examination before I can take any step to put it right.

Mr. Stanley: It is not a question of examining so much the effect as whether this is within the terms of the treaty or not, and if it is within the terms of the treaty, is it not a mistake to have treaties which allow things to be done by the other party which certainly are not contemplated in the negotiations?

Sir S. Cripps: I have stated already that it does not contravene the terms of the treaty. A great many things may happen which are not dealt with in treaties and

one then has to examine them to see what their effect is before deciding whether action is to be taken, or what action is to be taken.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make a statement when he has examined this matter?

Sir S. Cripps: If the hon. Member puts down a Question in a week or two's time, I will see.

United Kingdom and Canada

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the financial help given by Canada to this country during the war and in the immediate post-war period, what action is being taken by His Majesty's Government to help Canada in her present difficulties to balance her system of payments.

Sir S. Cripps: His Majesty's Government are fully conscious of the help given by Canada in meeting the Canadian dollar deficiency with the United Kingdom, and are taking every opportunity of increasing exports of United Kingdom goods to Canada.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If the Government are so well aware of what Canada has done for us, why are they keeping frozen the 300 million Canadian dollars which were promised to Canada for redevelopment in that country and have come to us principally by way of Estate Duty?

Sir S. Cripps: I am not aware of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has stated, I am afraid.

Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state, to the latest convenient date, the total of sums accruing to the Soviet Government under the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement; and to what extent such sums have been expended by the Soviet Government on the purchase of capital goods and raw materials, respectively.

Sir S. Cripps: I regret that I cannot give this information, which would involve the disclosure of movements into and out of the accounts of foreign clients of London banks.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is it not a fact that the Russian Government are busily buying raw materials from the proceeds of this trade agreement, and that, therefore, no sterling will be available to pay for capital goods under that agreement, unless we advance further loans to them?

Sir S. Cripps: Not so far as I know.

Sterling Balances

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount in 1947, and from 1st January, 1948, to the latest convenient date, respectively, of moneys released from sterling balances under agreements made by His Majesty's Government which have been utilised to purchase goods or settle debts in the United Kingdom and the sterling area, respectively.

Sir S. Cripps: I am preparing figures for circulation in the OFFICIAL REPORT which I hope will meet the hon. and gallant Member's requirement.

Eire (Dollars)

Mr. York: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many dollars were made available to Eire during the first and second halves respectively of 1947 and for the first half of 1948; for what separate purposes were the dollars made available; and whether these totals include purchases by Government Departments acting on behalf of Eire.

Sir S. Cripps: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) on 10th May, 1948.

Mr. York: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware of the bad effect on our own farmers of giving away dollars which could be used for buying feedingstuffs for them?

Sir S. Cripps: I am quite aware that everybody in the sterling area wishes he was the only user of dollars, and that nobody else was.

European Trade and Payments

Mr. M. Philips Price: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in

view of the shortage of sterling and the recent slowing down of commercial exchanges between the countries of Western Europe, he will consider taking the initiative at the Council of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation in Paris with a view to discussing remedies for this situation.

Sir S. Cripps: The Council of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation has set up Committees on European Trade and Payments to study as a matter of urgency problems of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers. United Kingdom representatives are taking an active part in the work of these Committees.

Defence Bonds (Repayments)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the figure of Defence Bonds paid off on maturity, as published weekly in the Exchequer Return, is excluded from the weekly statements issued by the National Savings Committee which purport to cover the repayment of Defence Bonds.

Sir S. Cripps: The weekly figures of the National Savings Committee do not purport to cover all repayments of Defence Bonds. Repayments on maturity are clearly distinguishable from withdrawals on notice or demand before maturity, and have never been included in the Committee's weekly figures. Attention was drawn to this fact in the explanatory statement published with the first return of net savings in April, 1947, and the point has been noted frequently in the financial Press and elsewhere.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain the distinction he draws between repayment on maturity and repayment before maturity? Does not this practice mask the true decline in national savings?

Sir S. Cripps: No, it does not mask the true decline. Those national savings statements are intended to include, not all information about national savings, but that on specific matters. That was made perfectly clear when the net figures were published for the first time last year.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what is the ground for the distinction?

Capital Investment Programme

Major Bruce: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the signs of disinflation now appearing, what proposals he has for modifications to the capital investment programme set out in Capital Investment in 1948 as modified by the Economic Survey for 1948.

Sir S. Cripps: I have nothing to add to my remarks on this topic during the Third Reading of the Finance Bill last Friday.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman see that the process of deflation, so often denounced from the benches opposite, is not allowed to be camouflaged under the new title, which appears to have originated from the Minister of Health?

Major Bruce: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the term was used in this House by a-former Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Opposition?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain somehow or another the difference between "disinflation" and "deflation"?

Beer Production

Mr. James Hudson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the beer production of the 21 largest brewery concerns in the United Kingdom during the last period for which the figures are available.

Sir S. Cripps: 7,938,000 standard barrels (11,666,000 bulk barrels) during the year ended 31st March, 1948.

Mr. Hudson: Does this represent an increase on similar recent periods?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that I have not got those figures.

Mr. James Glanville: What steps are being taken to increase the supply of beer?

Mr. J. Hudson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the beer production figures for each of the areas of the United Kingdom during the last period for which figures are available.

Sir S. Cripps: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with my hon.

Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hudson: Do any of these areas, particularly the Midland areas, show anything of those restrictions about which complaint has been made recently?

Sir S. Cripps: The areas into which division is made for the purpose of beer that is brewed are rather different from the areas to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Following is the answer:


BEER PRODUCTION, SEPTEMBER, 1947, SUBDIVIDED BY AREAS.



'000 bulk barrels.
'000 standard barrels.


Scotland
272
163


North West
370
204


North East
71
41


Yorkshire
278
161


Midlands (except Burton on-Trent).
615
361


South Wales
84
48


Eastern Counties
130
72


Devon and Cornwall
62
34


South (except London)
274
149


London
473
276


Burton-on-Trent
330
238


Small brewers not allocated to an area.
2
1



2,961
1,748

War Damage Claims

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is on the instructions of the Treasury that the War Damage Commission exclude, from cost of works claims, works which, while they did not formerly exist, do not change the form of hereditament and which local authorities insist shall form part of the repair of war damage.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir. The amount of a cost of works payment is determined by the War Damage Commission in accordance with the provisions of the War Damage Act.

Mr. Skinnard: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that the War Damage Commission does not seek to extend the meaning of the word "form" when trying to arrive at a proper cost?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not know that I really understand what my hon. Friend is asking. We have no power to direct


the War Damage Commission to take the line he desires. It must work within the Act.

Mr. Skinnard: Will the Financial Secretary try to persuade the War Damage Commission not to extend the meaning of the word "form" to include the technical terms "condition," "identical construction," and "identical ancillary works" for the purpose of arriving at "proper cost," which tend to give an additional cost on the actual building that is to be reconstructed?

European Economic Situation (Publications)

Major Bruce: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the forthcoming Debate on the European Recovery Programme and of the interest of hon. Members in European economic affairs, he will arrange for the Survey of the Economic Situation and Prospects of Europe, recently published by the Research and Planning Division of the Economic Commission for Europe, to be made available to hon. Members, on application, as a non-Parliamentary paper.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir, I regret that we must continue only to issue to hon. Members the publications of His Majesty's Government. Copies of the report mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend are already in the Library.

Major Bruce: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is only one copy available in the Library, and that that is barely adequate for 640 Members?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: In that case I shall see that an adequate supply is put there. I did not realise there was only one copy. I shall see that more are supplied at the earliest possible moment.

Industrial Production

Major Bruce: asked the Economic Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to a computation of the post-war level of industrial production in the United Kingdom in comparison with that obtaining in 1938 as set out in the United Nations publication Survey of the Economic Situation and Prospect of Europe; and whether he will incorporate this index of production in the Monthly Statistical Digest.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): I have seen the figures to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers, and they are, of course, available in the publication he mentions. We are ourselves making an official calculation, which compares the current level of production with that before the war, and will publish the results as soon as they are available.

Major Bruce: Is my hon. Friend aware that those figures make nonsense of Opposition propaganda on the subject?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS (NOTTINGHAM)

Mr. Harrison: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will favourably consider the suggestion, that a branch of His Majesty's Stationery Office should be opened in the city of Nottingham, in view of the increased importance of Government regulations to the citizen, the absence from the district mentioned of any such office, and the vast numbers of people residing there.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The Stationery Office has arrangements with a leading bookseller in Nottingham to give special attention to the sale of Government publications, and other leading booksellers in the city are also regular customers for official publications. The establishment of a special sale office in Nottingham would involve a use of manpower which could not at present be justified by increased sales or increased conveniences to the public.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Clothing Coupons (Armed Forces)

Commander Noble: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many clothing coupons are now issued to members of His Majesty's Forces on Regular engagements.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): The outfits of members of the Forces who are not commissioned officers are provided and maintained by the Services, and no coupons are issued. Volunteers accepted


for Regular engagements, however, obtain, at home stations, an annual grant of 30 civilian-type coupons to enable them to obtain clothing to wear when off duty. Commissioned officers are given varying rations of Service-type coupons to enable them to maintain their military outfits, including underclothes, shoes, etc.; in addition they receive the same allowance of civilian-type coupons as other ranks.

Furniture Industry (Development Council)

Mr. Collins: asked the President of the Board of Trade the reason for the delay in setting up a Development Council for the furniture industry; when he anticipates that it will be set up; and if he will give an assurance that the utility furniture scheme will not be discontinued until the Development Council has formulated an alternative for the maintenance of agreed standards of quality.

Mr. Belcher: The organisations representing employers and workers in the furniture industry have had before them for some time draft proposals for the establishment of a Development Council, but consideration of them was held up at the request of the employers until certain urgent matters concerning production and supplies of materials had been cleared. More rapid progress should now be possible, and it is hoped to be able to bring the necessary order before the House in the Autumn. As to the last part of the Question, I have no doubt that the Development Council will regard the problem of quality standards as a job to be tackled urgently when they are set up, and I hope that they will have been able to formulate recommendations on this subject before there is any question of ending the utility scheme.

Mr. Collins: Will my hon. Friend give a definite assurance that no move will be made with regard to the termination of the utility furniture scheme until after the Development Council has made proposals for an alternative, and those proposals have been considered?

Mr. Belcher: I should not like to be tied to a hard and fast assurance. I have every reason to believe that alternative proposals will be forthcoming before the utility scheme is terminated.

DOCKS STRIKE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Prime Minister if he has any further statement to make about the strike at the docks?

The Prime Minister: From the reports received, there is a good prospect of a general resumption of work tomorrow. Regulations have been drafted. If it is still found necessary to make them, they will be made tomorrow.

Mr. Eden: May I say how much, I am sure, hon. Members in all parts of the House welcome what the Prime Minister has said, and how much we hope that the expectations he has expressed will be entirely fulfilled? May I ask him on Business whether, in view of his statement, we may take it that Business tomorrow will be as originally arranged, that is to say, a foreign affairs Debate; and then we can see about further Business in accordance with how the situation has developed?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Tomorrow there will be a Debate on foreign affairs and any other matter can be dealt with through the usual channels.

Mr. Mellish: Is the Prime Minister aware that following his brilliant broadcast last night when he asked the dockers to go back to work this morning, this morning at the Victoria Park meeting at which I was present, when the Prime Minister was attacked by one of the Communists speaking on the unofficial platform, the speaker was howled down by the dockers and dragged off the platform?

Mrs. Braddock: Does not the Prime Minister feel that it is disastrous for a Labour Government to invoke Emergency Regulations, when the whole matter of the unofficial strike could easily have been settled, if one man had had the courage to withdraw his first statement and recommend the suspensions of the penalties imposed on the 11 men, pending the full inquiry—

Mr. Speaker: That is not a question. It is an argument and statement. Only questions are allowed now.

Mrs. Braddock: I was asking a question.

Mr. Speaker: It should be put briefly and not in the course of a long statement.

Mrs. Braddock: May I finish the question—pending the full inquiry which has now been promised?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I made a full statement on this matter and showed what the position was. I have nothing to add to the statement I previously made in reply to the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin).

Mr. Gallacher: Would the Prime Minister say whether this strike has not ended in the same way as the dock strike in 1924, which was led by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Foreign Secretary, where the Emergency Powers Act was invoked; and in view of the fact that the Emergency Powers Act was invoked against the Foreign Secretary when he led the dock strike and that Act is used again by the Labour Government, how does the Prime Minister assert that subversive elements are responsible for this strike? Were they subversive elements in 1924?

Mr. Logan: I did not intend to ask a question, but in view of what has been said by two hon. Members who have already spoken, and as one who was present at the Liverpool meeting, I should like to ask the Prime Minister how long are we to tolerate in the City of Liverpool, or any other city, the Communist Party instigating people to rise in the city, although they know nothing whatever about the matter? This was a self-inspired Communist meeting on Sunday night, and I should like to know what steps can be taken to keep irresponsibles from coming to the City of Liverpool to cause strikes?

EUROPEAN RECOVERY (U.K.—U.S.A. AGREEMENT)

Sir S. Cripps: I have to announce to the House that an agreed text has been arrived at between H.M. Government and the Government of the U.S.A. for the Bilateral Agreement which is to be entered into in connection with our receipt of aid under the European Recovery Programme.
As has already been stated to the House by my right hon. Friend the Lord President a full opportunity will be provided for the House to discuss this agreement before it is signed. The text of the Agreement will be published this afternoon

in the form of a White Paper and a Motion will be put on the Order Paper in appropriate terms approving the form of agreement which will be discussed on the first two days of next week. As, however, there will be some delay before that discussion takes place it would, I think, be for the convenience of the House if I were to indicate the main lines of the Agreement at once. Any questions as to its form and content will no doubt be conveniently left over till the discussion next week.
I would remind the House very shortly of the background to the Agreement. On 16th April last a convention for European Economic Co-operation was entered into by this country in the form set out in Cmd. 7388 which laid down the general plan for European co-operation in the light of E.R.P., and it contained in Part I certain general obligations to ensure that the participating countries took the action, both individually and collectively to make a success of the joint recovery programme.
The Economic Co-operation Act which was passed by the Congress of the United States of America on 3rd April last which gave legislative power to the generous offer of assistance made by Mr. Marshall last year, laid down that in order to become eligible for aid each country would be required to enter into a bilateral agreement with the U.S.A. which would provide for adherence to the general purposes of that Act and which should, where applicable, make appropriate provision for the matters specifically set out in Section 115 (b) of that Act. For the convenience of the House, I am having that Section reproduced in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Under Section 115 (c) of that Act provision was made whereby, notwithstanding the requirements of Section 115 (b), during the first three months after the date of the Act (3rd April, 1948) the Administrator could perform any of the functions authorised under the Act that he considered necessary with respect to any participating country, provided:

(i) Such country had signified its adherence to the purposes of the Act and its intention to conclude a bilateral agreement thereunder, and
(ii) he was satisfied that such country was complying with the applicable provisions of the Act.



On the 30th April, H.M. Government signified by letter their intention of adhering to the purposes of the Act and of concluding a bilateral agreement. Copies of the correspondence will be found in HANSARD of 11th May last, col. 198.
It was decided that the most convenient and speedy form of arriving at the various bilateral agreements would be to have a joint negotiation of a common form or master form agreement. These negotiations have been carried out in Washington between the United States Government and a small body representing the countries participating in O.E.E.C., each country retaining the right to express its own views. In the form of agreement that has resulted there are therefore parts which will be more applicable to the conditions in certain participating countries and less applicable to those in others. This fact must be borne in mind in examining the terms. There are in addition a series of interpretative notes and a letter which are annexed to the Agreement.
The Agreement itself consists of 13 articles, preceded by a preamble which sets out the general co-operative intentions of the parties. Under the first article the Government of the U.S.A. undertakes to make assistance available to the United Kingdom in accordance with the provisions of the Economic Co-operation Act and any subsequent amendment thereto.
The Government of the U.K. states that it will itself and in co-operation with the O.E.E.C. exert sustained efforts to attain the purpose of E.R.P.; that is to achieve independence of extraordinary outside assistance within the period of E.R.P. It likewise reaffirms its intention to carry out its obligations under the O.E.E.C. convention and to continue to adhere to the purposes and policies of the Economic Co-operation Act.
The Government of the U.K. also states that it will co-operate with the Government of the U.S.A. to see that E.R.P. dollars used in purchases in third countries (offshore purchases) are used to the best advantage and in accordance with any arrangement entered into by the Government of the U.S.A. with such third country.
Article II incorporates certain of the principal provisions of Section 115 (b) of the Economic Co-operation Act. There-under H.M. Government states that it will use its best endeavours to adopt or maintain—in our case it is, practically, to maintain—certain measures calculated to achieve the maximum recovery by the use of the assistance received from the Government of the U.S.A., and of its other resources. This provision makes it quite clear that H.M. Government is the sole judge of how it shall use its best endeavours and as to what measures it shall adopt.
There are two interpretative notes under the first paragraph of this article. The first to assure that the commodities provided by the U.S.A. will not be misused, by for instance being allowed to go into the black market; and the second to explain a matter which occurs in sub-paragraph 1 (c). Under this sub-paragraph H.M. Government undertakes that it will use its best endeavours to stabilise its currency, establish or maintain a valid rate of exchange, balance its Governmental Budget, create or maintain internal financial stability and generally restore or maintain confidence in its monetary system.
These are all, of course, sound objectives that we are already carrying out and which it is highly desirable that other countries should carry out in accordance with Article 7 of the O.E.E.C. convention. But to avoid any doubt on the matter the second interpretative note makes it clear that the balancing of the Budget does not preclude an annual deficit provided the policy is to maintain a balance in the long run. A further sub-paragraph deals with dollar assets of the participating countries and we agree to use our best endeavour to the extent practicable to put into appropriate use, in furtherance of E.R.P., United Kingdom assets in the U.S.A.
The paragraph states specifically that there is no obligation upon us to dispose of such assets, and I am authorised to state it to be the view of the Government of the U.S.A., that the measures now in effect in the United Kingdom adequately fulfil the obligation of the United Kingdom under this paragraph, relating to the mobilisation of United States assets of United Kingdom nationals, and that the clause is directed to the maintenance of


existing measures rather than to the adoption of new ones.
Paragraph 3 of Article II together with the two relevant interpretative notes follows essentially the provisions of the Havana Charter for the I.T.O. in dealing with restrictive practices which might have the effect of interfering with the E.R.P. It calls for action only after appropriate inquiry and leaves to His Majesty's Government the choice of measures should any action be found to be necessary.
Article IV deals with the necessary provisions for setting aside in a special fund at the Bank of England the sterling equivalent of the grant aid. The commodities received under the grant provisions will of course be sold by His Majesty's Government for sterling in this country and those sterling receipts are to be paid into the special fund. Drawings on this will be made for the U.S. Government's expenses in this country in administering the aid. Under the recent provision made by Congress up to 5 per cent. of the fund may be expended for this purpose and upon materials required by the U.S.A. for stock piling and other purposes. Apart from this the fund will be expended by His Majesty's Government for purposes—such as the reduction of the floating debt agreed with the Government of the U.S.A.
Article V relates to the supply of materials required by the U.S.A. for stock piling and other purposes subject to the reasonable requirements of the United Kingdom. It is general in its terms and subsequent specific arrangements will have to be agreed for its implementation. An interpretative note is attached to this article to clarify the reservation as to the reasonable, requirements of the United Kingdom and makes it plain that such reasonable requirements include stocking requirements. It also makes provision for the case of such stock piles being liquidated by the U.S.A. Government.
Article VII provides for consultation between the two Governments as to the application of the terms of the Agreement and for the communication of necessary information to the Government of the U.S.A. An interpretative note explains that H.M. Government will not be asked to furnish detailed information as to matters of lesser importance or information

the disclosure of which would injure legitimate commercial interests.
Articles III, VI, VIII and IX deal with matters such as guarantees on transfer risks which the administrator is authorised to give to U.S. Nationals undertaking projects in the United Kingdom; travel facilities and relief supplies from the U.S.A.; publicity on E.R.P.; and co-operation with the Special U.S. Mission. Article X is an arbitration clause to cover nationals of either country complaining of their treatment by the other country and article XI deals with definitions. Article XII defines the meaning to be given to United Kingdom and thereby the area of application of the Agreement.
Provision has been made for the accession of Colonial territories to the Agreement. A number have already signified their willingness to accede, others will no doubt also do so. A provision will be incorporated in an exchange of letters which would entitle the Government of the U.S.A. in the event of the non-accession of the more important colonies to consider a modification of the form or continuance of assistance to the United Kingdom in the light of such circumstances and in consultation with H.M. Government.
Article XIII provides for the term of the Agreement. It becomes effective upon signature and will remain in force till 30th June, 1953. It can be terminated on that or any subsequent date by six months' notice by either side. If however either Government at any time considers there has been a fundamental change in the basic assumptions underlying the Agreement there is to be consultation. If then there is not within three months agreement either Government can give notice to terminate within six months. If the Agreement was so terminated then certain of its provisions run on for a limited period to complete their operation.
There is one other matter that I should mention. Concurrently with the signature of the Agreement an exchange of letters is proposed to deal with the position of Germany and Trieste. It is proposed that for those zones of Germany and Trieste in which the U.S.A. and the U.K. are occupying or controlling powers that the Government of the U.S.A. and H.M. Government should give most favoured nation treatment for a period of two and a half years in accordance with


the rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that was entered into at Geneva. This treatment will be reciprocal. A separate paper setting out these letters will also be available in the Vote Office this afternoon.

Mr. Eden: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand me when I say that we on this side of the House would rather reserve comment and judgment until we have a chance of studying the White Paper, which I understand will be available this afternoon. I want to put only one point, and that is on how this matter is to be handled in the Debate. If I understood aright, the Government propose to put down a Motion of their own, which will, I suppose, mean that the opening speech of the Debate will be made by a Government spokesman.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Gallacher: And then sing, "Land of Hope and Glory."

Mr. John Paton: Can my right hon. and learned Friend elucidate a little more the provisions of the most-favoured-nation clause? It has been reported in reputable newspapers that other nations concerned in E.R.P. have accepted a clause which applies also to Japan and Korea. Is that or is not that the case?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid I cannot state what the agreement of any other nation is, but, as far as this Agreement is concerned, it has nothing to do with either Japan or Korea.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say whether an undertaking has been given that this Agreement will be signed by any particular date?

Sir S. Cripps: No undertaking has been given, but it will obviously be convenient if it can be signed by 6th July, which is now the date and not 3rd July, after which aid will not be available unless it is signed.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Can my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear whether these proposals have the support and co-operation of the Dominions?

Sir S. Cripps: There has been no direct consultation with them, but they have of course been informed of the progress.

Mr. Chamberlain: Will that be followed up in some convenient way?

Mr. Paton: May I press my right hon. and learned Friend on the point I have already put to him? If, in fact, it is the case that the others of the 16 nations have accepted a most-favoured-nation clause which includes the products of Japan and Korea that may have the very gravest consequences for British world trade.

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid I have nothing to add on that point to what I have already said.

Following is Section 115 (b) of the Economic Co-operation Act:

(b) The provision of assistance under this title results from the multilateral pledges of the participating countries to use all their efforts to accomplish a joint recovery program based upon self-help and mutual co-operation as embodied in the report of the Committee of European Economic Co-operation signed at Paris on September 22. 1947, and is contingent upon continuous effort of the participating countries to accomplish a joint recovery program through multilateral undertakings and the establishment of a continuing organisation for this purpose. In addition to continued mutual co-operation of the participating countries in such a program, each such country shall conclude an agreement with the United States in order for such country to be eligible to receive assistance under this title. Such agreement shall provide for the adherence of such country to the purposes of this title and shall, where applicable, make appropriate provision, among others, for—

(1) promoting industrial and agricultural production in order to enable the participating country to become independent of extraordinary outside economic assistance; and submitting for the approval of the Administrator, upon his request and whenever he deems it in furtherance of the purpose of this title, specific projects proposed by such country to be undertaken in substantial part with assistance furnished under this title, which projects, whenever practicable, shall include projects for increased production of coal, steel, transportation facilities, and food;
(2) taking financial and monetary measures necessary to stabilise its currency, establish or maintain a valid rate of exchange, to balance its governmental budget as soon as practicable, and generally to restore or maintain confidence in its monetary system;
(3) co-operating with other participating countries in facilitating and stimulating an increasing interchange of goods and services among the participating countries and


with other countries and co-operating to reduce barriers to trade among themselves and with other countries;
(4) making efficient and practical use, within the framework of a joint program for European recovery, of the resources of such participating country, including any commodities, facilities, or services furnished under this title, which use shall include, to the extent practicable, taking measures to locate and identify and put into appropriate use, in furtherance of such program, assets, and earnings therefrom, which belong to the citizens of such country and which are situated within the United States, its Territories and possessions;
(5) facilitating the transfer to the United States by sale, exchange, barter, or otherwise for stock-piling or other purposes, for such period of time as may be agreed to and upon reasonable terms and in reasonable quantities, of materials which are required by the United States as a result of deficiencies or potential deficiencies in its own resources, and which may be available in such participating country after due regard for reasonable requirements for domestic use and commercial export of such country;
(6) placing in a special account a deposit in the currency of such country, in commensurate amounts and under such terms and conditions as may be agreed to between such country and the Government of the United States, when any commodity or service is made available through any means authorized under this title, and is furnished to the participating country on a grant basis. Such special account, together with the unencumbered portions of any deposits which may have been made by such country pursuant to Section 6 of the joint resolution providing for relief assistance to the people of countries devastated by war (Public Law 84, Eightieth Congress) and Section 5 (b) of the Foreign Aid Act of 1947 (Public Law 389, Eightieth Congress), shall be held or used within such country for such purposes as may be agreed to between such country and the Administrator in consultation with the National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Problems, and the Public Advisory Board provided for in Section 107 (a) for purposes of internal monetary and financial stabilisation, for the stimulation of productive activity and the exploration for and development of new sources of wealth, or for such other expenditures as may be consistent with the purposes of this title, including local currency administrative expenditures of the United States

incident to operations under this title, and under agreement that any unencumbered balance remaining in such account on June 30, 1952, shall be disposed of within such country for such purposes as may, subject to approval by Act or joint resolution of the Congress, be agreed to between such country and the Government of the United States;
(7) publishing in such country and transmitting to the United States, not less frequently than every calendar quarter after the date of the agreement, full statements of operations under the agreement, including a report of the use of funds, commodities, and services received under this title;
(8) furnishing promptly, upon request of the United States, any relevant information which would be of assistance to the United States in determining the nature and scope of operations and the use of assistance provided under this title;
(9) recognising the principle of equity in respect to the drain upon the natural resources of the United States and of the recipient countries, by agreeing to negotiate (a) a future schedule of minimum availabilities to the United States for future purchase and delivery of a fair share of materials which are required by the United States as a result of deficiencies or potential deficiencies in its own resources at world market prices so as to protect the access of United States industry to an equitable share of such materials either in percentages of production or in absolute quantities from the participating countries, and (b) suitable protection for the right of access for any person as defined in paragraph (iii) of subparagraph (3) of section 111 (b) in the development of such materials on terms of treatment equivalent to those afforded to the nationals of the country concerned, and (c) an agreed schedule of increased production of such materials where practicable in such participating countries and for delivery of an agreed percentage of such increased production to be transferred to the United States on a long-term basis in consideration of assistance furnished by the Administrator to such countries under this title; and
(10) submitting for the decision of the International Court of Justice or of any arbitral tribunal mutually agreed upon any case espoused by the United States Government involving compensation of a national of the United States for governmental measures affecting his property rights, including contracts with or concessions from such country.

MESSAGE FROM THE KING

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT, 1920

Message from His Majesty brought up, and read by Mr. Speaker, as follows:
The Emergency Powers Act, 1920, having enacted that if it appears to His Majesty that any action has been taken or is immediately threatened by any persons or body of persons of such a nature and on so extensive a scale as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, light or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, His Majesty may, by proclamation, declare that a state of emergency exists: and the cessation of work in certain sections of the dock industry having, in His

Majesty's opinion, constituted a state of emergency within the meaning of the said Act:
His Majesty has deemed it proper, by proclamation made in pursuance of the said Act and dated the twenty-eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, to declare that a state of emergency exists.

Message to be considered upon Thursday.—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 133.

Orders of the Day — MONOPLY (INQUIRY AND CONTROL) [MONEY] (No. 2)

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for inquiry into the existence and effects of, and for dealing with mischiefs resulting from, or arising in connection with, any conditions of monopoly or restriction or other analogous conditions prevailing as respects the supply of, or the application of any process to, goods buildings or structures, or as respects exports, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of salaries and other remuneration paid to officers and servants, and contributions under pension schemes in respect of members, officers and servants, of the Monopoly Commission constituted under that Act.

Orders of the Day — MONOPOLY (INQUIRY AND CONTROL) BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 1, page 1, lines 9 and 10 and Clause 1, page 2, lines 14 and 20 standing on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Wilson and in respect of the new Clause (Reports on general questions) standing on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Wilson.—[Mr. Wilson.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

(Mr. THURTLE in the Chair)

CLAUSE 1.—(Constitution of the Commission.)

4.2 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out "three," and to insert "four."
In our previous discussion on the constitution of the Monopoly Commission some doubts were expressed by Members on both sides about the size of the Commission. I think we are all agreed that the Commission must be large enough to do their job, and I gave an undertaking in Standing Committee that I would reconsider the question of its constitution, to see whether we could put a higher figure into the Bill. The previous

proposal was that the Commission should consist of not fewer than three nor more than eight members, and this Amendment and the following Amendment would have the effect of amending this to "not less than four nor more than 10." At the beginning, in view of the load which we think the Commission will have to carry in their early stages, I propose to appoint six members to the Commission, including the chairman.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: We on this side appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has sought to meet our point of view, and we shall not divide the Committee on this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 10, leave out "eight," and insert "ten."—[Mr. Wilson.]

Mr. Wilson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, to leave out from the first "The," to the end of line 16, and to insert:
Commission shall appoint a secretary to the Commission and may appoint such other officers and such servants of the Commission as the Commission may, with the consent of the Board of Trade and the Treasury, determine:
Provided that the appointment of any person to be the secretary to the Commission shall be subject to the approval of the Board.
This, again, is an Amendment to give effect to an assurance I gave in Standing Committee, following a very powerful speech by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). When the Bill was presented I thought it would be appropriate that the Board of Trade should appoint the secretariat of the Commission, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman and some of his colleagues, and some of my hon. Friends on this side, convinced me that it was right that the Commission's staff should be appointed by the Commission themselves.

Mr. Pickthorn: I think the draft is a little difficult here. I apologise if I am wrong but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will listen to me for a minute. As it is drafted, it says the
Commission shall appoint a secretary to the Commission and may appoint such other officers and such servants of the Commission as the Commission may, with the consent of the Board of Trade and the Treasury, determine provided that the appointment of any person to be the secretary to the Commission shall be subject to the approval of the Board.


That is in the case of a secretary consent to the nomination is necessary, but not in the other cases. I want to be quite sure about that. If that is so, I would tentatively suggest that the drafting would be better—I do not propose to endeavour to redraft it now—if there were something of this sort, "May appoint such other number and class of officers and servants," or, "such other numbers and classes of officers or servants," or something of that sort. As the words stand there is a real contradiction between the main part and the proviso. I do not know if I make myself clear, but I think that that is so. If I am told that the draftsman has thought twice about this and is quite sure the words mean what it is intended, I am prepared not to press the matter, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some enlightment on the subject.

Mr. Scollan: May I also say that in reading over this Amendment I have got a wrong impression. It could be that the word "Board" would be some other board than the Commission. I cannot make out what it is.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) was quite right in his interpretation of what this Amendment means. The establishment of the Commission and the number of posts to be created, are, of course, subject to the consent of the Board of Trade and the Treasury. The Committee will agree that that is right. We do not want to multiply further than is necessary the expense of staff. The second part of the Amendment means that the actual choice of person is to be approved by the Board of Trade and where the word "Board" is used it means the Board of Trade. The word "Board" is quite a common form which goes back over some 200 years or more. I am assured that this drafting is right, and this was the best form to cover the point which the hon. Member the senior Burgess for Cambridge has correctly interpreted. I hope he will be content to leave it there, but I can give him the assurance that I will have another look at it to see if the difficulties that he has raised might possibly be removed by some improved drafting. If there were to be improved drafting then it could be introduced at some later stage.

Mr. William Shepherd: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that there was a considerable discussion in Standing Committee on the extent to which the members would be whole-time or part-time. There was a good deal of unanimity that the chairman ought to be a full-time member. At that time the President of the Board of Trade had no information to offer us, and I should like to ask him today whether he can say to what extent the members of this Commission are to be full-time or part-time.

Mr. Wilson: I do not know how far this arises on the Amendment dealing with the appointment of the secretary to the Commission. I do not see how a full-time or part-time chairman affects the appointment of a secretary, but I can say that I have considered carefully the question of the appointments to the Commission in the hope of being able to make some announcement as soon as it is clear that the House approves the Bill. I do not think I have anything to add to what I said in. Standing Committee. It would be very difficult at this time to indicate whether a part-time or a whole-time person was necessary, nor do I wish to tie down any future Minister in any appointment that he may be making. I hope the Committee are prepared to leave it at that.

Amendment agreed to.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Wilson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, to leave out "all or any of their members," and to insert:
and such contributions under pensions schemes paid in respect of any of their members, officers or servants.
This is consequential in some sense on the Amendment which has just been accepted by the Committee. In the original draft of the Bill it was not necessary to make any provision for pension contributions because it was there provided that the Board of Trade would appoint the secretariat. It was naturally thought that the secretariat would be wholly or mainly drawn from Government Departments, and, of course, superannuation rights of such a staff would be fully safeguarded. Now that it is for the Commission to appoint their own staff, it would be quite wrong for us to assume that they will appoint Government servants to the majority of the posts in


question. Certainly some of them would be, and, therefore, it seems right, in order to protect the pension rights of persons appointed, that we must provide for the Commission to be able to subscribe to the superannuation contributions of this staff.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Reports on general questions.)

(1) The Board of Trade may at any time require the Commission to submit to them a report on the general effect on the public interest of practices of a specified class, being practices which in the opinion of the Board are commonly adopted as a result of, or for the purpose of preserving, conditions to which this Act applies.
(2) The provisions of this section shall be be without prejudice to the generality of the powers and duties conferred and imposed on the Board of Trade and the Commission by subsection (2) of section two of this Act.—[Mr. Wilson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Wilson: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is intended to meet a point which came up on the Committee stage and which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick).

Mr. Pickthorn: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us which date?

Mr. Wilson: I can tell the hon. Gentleman the column number; it is 186–7. The Committee felt that the Commission might, when investigating conditions connected with a particular class of goods, come across some restrictive practices commonly used in a variety of trades and industries, such as loyalty rebates, price maintenance, boycotting of a particular class of retailers and so on. It was felt that the comments of the Commission, which will gradually become more and more skilled on monopolistic practices, would be valuable on such a general class of practice. Although the Commission has already been given considerable latitude in what it can include in its report, it was felt desirable that the Commission should be asked to make reports of a general character on general practices of that kind.
This Clause would enable the Commission to present in a convenient form the

general conclusions about particular practices of the kind I have mentioned based on sources of past investigations into the operations of these practices in particular trades. It is right that references of this kind should be made only at fairly long intervals, but the reports, which, of course, in normal circumstances will be published, would help to unify opinion on monopoly problems and it would be, as the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) said on one occasion, of great value to industry if the views of the Commission on this kind of thing were available.
I want to make it quite clear that a report made by the Monopoly Commission under this Clause could not be followed by any specific action because the Commission, making a report of this kind, would have no powers to take evidence or to compel witnesses to attend to give evidence. It would be acting in much the same position as an ordinary Departmental Committee. Nevertheless, it would be most valuable to have the views of this Commission on such general practices. I understood, when the point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, that that was the general view of hon. Members upon both sides of the Committee. It is in that spirit that I have moved the Second Reading of this Clause.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I must confess that my hon. Friends and I are a little troubled by the proposed new Clause. We feel that the strength of the mode of approach to this problem which the Bill adopts is that it depends upon inquiry, based upon an examination of agreed and specific facts, and upon arriving at a result upon that basis. I appreciate, as the right hon. Gentleman envisaged in his speech, that we might have half a dozen inquiries into ordinary questions that are raised by the Bill without the need for the proposed new Clause, and that a practice might come to light demanding a more general form of inquiry.
I find great difficulty in seeing how this situation could arise. We have had, ex hypothesi the right hon. Gentleman's argument, an inquiry into the application of the practice in a particular case and the Commission have expressed their view, and the practice has been dealt with by some action, if action has been deemed necessary. I cannot understand what is


in the right hon. Gentleman's mind on this point. He has had the practice fully inquired into in relation to an operation of trade or industry, or two or three different industries. Then, he, so to speak, asks the Commission to deal with the practice in vacuo, not related to the basis on which the Commission have already examined that practice.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am most anxious to consider every form of action which would deal with this problem upon the basis that we have all adopted. I find difficulty in seeing the advantage of the Clause. From my own experience in my profession I know that the view which the courts have always expressed is against dealing with academic questions and for dealing with a question only in relation to the fact which has given rise to it. I believe that that view and that practice are salutary. Therefore, while I do not wish in the least to be obstructive, I feel that I am to be convinced that there is this gap in the Bill, and that what we all want to see is not covered by the general procedure, with the addition of Clause 2 (2). I hope that the right hon. Gentleman may be able to give us some more specific examples. If he is not, I am afraid that my hon. Friends and myself must take a view against the proposed new Clause.

Mr. W. Shepherd: As my right hon. and learned Friend has indicated, we do not look with favour upon this new Clause, which is contrary to what the Minister himself said during the Committee stage. He did not then think that the Clause would be necessary. It will be interesting if the right hon. Gentleman will now tell us what sort of pressure has been put upon him by hon. Members who sit behind him between the time when he made his speech in Committee and when he decided to put the new Clause upon the Paper. In Committee he said:
I am sure the Commission would itself put forward general reports when dealing with particular cases.
The argument from this side of the Committee was quite clear: If, as a result of accumulated experience, the Commission felt, of their own volition, impelled to submit general reports on a specific practice, there would be nothing wrong about it. The President also made the position quite clear. He said:"

There is nothing in the Bill as at present drafted which would prevent the Monopoly Commission doing that.
I think that is the case. Hon. Members may therefore well ask why the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward this new Clause, when he himself said:
I do not think it is necessary to insert it in the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 3rd June, 1948; c. 187.]
The right hon. Gentleman's view then was that the Clause was not necessary. We share that view. We feel that the instruction which the Board of Trade are to give to the Commission to present a report upon a general practice which it might not be the desire of the Commission to do is wholly bad. We think it would be much better to leave the Bill as it stands and to allow the Commission to submit a Clause on general practices if, as a result of accumulation of experience, they desire to make representations on particular points.
I would ask the President of the Board of Trade two questions. What is to happen to the proposed reports when they are made, presumably to the President of the Board of Trade? Are they to be made upon a limited reference or upon a full reference? Will they be laid before this House and shall we have an opportunity of discussion upon them? If there are to be reports upon general practices it is desirable that this House should have an opportunity of voicing its opinion. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a further question. At what period from the date of the commencement of the Commission's activities does he visualise such a request being made to the Commission? I hope he proposes to give the Commission a long run before making requests of this kind. If this Clause is to be added to the Bill we should have an assurance of no premature demand upon the Commission, who should be allowed to accumulate a good deal of experience first.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: In the quotation which he made from the Committee proceedings the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) has not done full justice to the observations made by the President of the Board of Trade. He quoted certain extracts from those observations, I want to add to them. I am looking at the same column, in which my right hon. Friend made it clear that


he was in full sympathy with the general principles of the Amendment then before the Committee. He said:
I am quite prepared to give further thought to it to see whether we should include it, though we would have on the Report stage to propose a slightly different form of words.
He said he was sure that the Commission would itself be able to put forward general reports when dealing with particular cases, and he added:
If it were reviewing two or three cases which raised a particular principle it might give a general report on that principle."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 3rd June, 1948; c. 187.]
As I understand the matter, the main object of the Clause is to make it clear that the Commission shall have power to make reports of this kind to the President of the Board of Trade if they so require, and that the matter shall not be left vague or ambiguous.
4.30 p.m.
I should have thought that it was eminently desirable that this new Clause should be inserted, that the matter should not be left in the realm of doubt and that it should be made expressly and abundantly clear that the Commission might be required to make a general report not on one specific case, but on general matters which came to their notice arising out of their inquiries into a number of cases. We are dealing with something which is rather new, in this Bill. We are entering a hitherto uncharted sea. None of us can know how the Commission will operate and in what detail its reports will appear.
I should have thought that in the course of time the Commission would come across practices of various kinds which ought to be drawn to the attention of the House. I should have thought it would be highly convenient if the President of the Board of Trade had power to request reports of a general nature from time to time rather than leave it to this House and the public to assimilate conclusions of their own from reports dealing with specific cases. It will be highly valuable to have generalised reports from time to time by the Commission as a result of their manifold activities. Therefore, I hope the Committee will support the new Clause.

Mr. Pickthorn: I agree that we all desire to avoid ambiguity and vagueness, but I do not feel certain that we are not

importing more than we are removing here. If hon. Gentlemen will look at the Report, or if they remember it clearly, they will see that the original Amendment was to add:
or the like of conditions in general."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 3rd June, 1948, c. 186.]
The assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, as has already been indicated, was that he thought the Commission ought to deal and would deal with general principles arising out of particular cases. But what is being authorised in this Clause—I think I am right—is something quite different. What is being authorised here is not reports on general principles arising out of, so to speak, the summation of particular cases. What is being authorised here is reports of the effects of those cases upon the general public interest. That is something wholly different from what was asked for by the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) or what was promised by the President of the Board of Trade, and whatever else this new Clause does, it does not in my understanding of the words implement the discussions in Cols. 186 and 187 of the OFFICIAL REPORT.
This is something quite new. This really is altering the character of the Bill very considerably. It is putting the Commission in a rather difficult situation. The Board may now compel the Commission to report upon something on which the Commission has no right of demanding evidence, sending for papers and persons, cross-examining on oath and so on. That, to begin with, is clearly undesirable. I do not say that it is so undesirable that it ought never to happen, but it is giving the Commission a task of a different nature and of a more difficult nature than its general task.
Secondly, not only is it a procedurally new task but it is different in function and purpose. Its purpose is different from the normal purpose of the Commission's work because the purpose here is not to find out exactly what is being done restrictively or otherwise by the egg-basket making industry or whatnot; the purpose here is to report what is the effect upon the universe in general, at any rate, upon the British State and people in general—of the behaviour in some particular of the egg-basket making industry and allied and other industries. That seems to me a quite different thing,


and such as alters the nature of the Commission very much. It is highly unfortunate that it should be at this stage that we should have that introduced. It seems to me to be really altering the nature of the Bill very much more considerably than is ordinarily done at this stage or than was contemplated by either side during the Debate on Clause 6 on the Committee stage.

Mr. Beswick: I had no doubt that the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn)—

Mr. Pickthorn: Not learned.

Mr. Beswick: —the hon. and unlearned Member for Cambridge University would find that some words I said did not in fact mean what I thought they meant at the time I uttered them. I can only say that I am very grateful to the President of the Board of Trade for putting forward this new Clause. As has been stated, I moved an Amendment on the Committee stage. The President said that he thought the point I put forward was adequately covered and if the point was not adequately covered, he would bring forward a more suitably worded Amendment. So far as I was concerned, the matter was left at that, and any talk about pressure is completely beside the point. I presume that the right hon. Gentleman's legal advisers have advised him that the point I sought to have covered was not covered and that the new Clause is designed to do that, and I am prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's legal advisers and their authority as against the authority of the hon. and unlearned Member for Cambridge University.
What we had in our minds was something quite simple. It was that a matter had been put before the Commission and that it involved a practice which was properly carried out by other trade associations or firms, and that although the inquiry was in the first place restricted to one industry or one association of industries, it would be competent for the Commission to make some observations on the effect of this class of practice in other industries. I should have thought that for the Commission to make such a report or such observations would have been helpful to industry generally. No doubt there

are a number of trade associations who have no wish to engage in practice which is anti-social and they would be only too ready to follow any guidance given to them. Because I believe a report of this kind might well be useful as a preventive as well as a cure, I am grateful to the President of the Board of Trade for putting forward the new Clause.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: I do not think this Clause is an improvement on the Bill. I do not think it is desirable where we have set up a semi-judicial body to ask it to write essays on various matters. I do not believe it would be a good plan to ask His Majesty's Judges to present the President of the Board of Trade from time to time with their opinions on the subject of parricide or something of that kind. The President of the Board of Trade gave away the whole case for the new Clause in saying that a long interval must elapse before such a report was called for and that it ought only to be called for at long intervals. I beg hon. Members opposite not to think that all industrialists and all industries are completely half-witted. We all agree that under this Commission a sort of case law relating to particular matters which have been threshed out by the Committee with all its power of taking evidence will be placed before the public and, indeed, before this House. I suggest that from that case law, industry will be able to judge how it should act in those cases. However, if we are to have general essays promoted by the Board of Trade on whether it is ever right that all newspapers should be sold at the same price or on this that or the other, we are embarking, as an hon. Member said, on an entirely new field.
I do not think the new Clause is at all an improvement on the Bill. We might escape a Division on this matter if the President of the Board of Trade would do two things; first, give us an assurance that he will look again at these words; secondly, insert in the Clause an assurance that it will not be put into force except for the job of consolidating reports already made. I am most anxious not to get into the Bill the kind of situation where the Board of Trade says, "We would like an essay by the Commission on price maintenance" because, while it is quite possible that price maintenance may be against the public interest, it is equally


possible that price maintenance may be in the public interest. We do not want essays, but a judicial body which is able to look into actual practice. The rest of us are quite able to judge whether, in maintaining the price to the consumer, we are following the general lines upon which the President wishes the industry to work. I deprecate widening the field on which this body has to report, and for which it has to be responsible.

Mr. Wilson: I hasten to assure the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) that there has been no pressure or anything else put on me since the Committee stage which has caused me to put down this new Clause. I do not think I even discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), but I gave an assurance at the time that I would give it further thought, having expressed sympathy with the principle of my hon. Friend's Amendment, and after giving it further thought, I came to the view that it was desirable to put down this Clause.
The hon. Member for Bucklow wanted to know what would be the procedure following a report of this kind. It would be simply publication, except where publication of the "essay," as the right hon. Gentleman called it, involved public interest on grounds of security, secrecy, defence matters and so on. What we had in mind, as I have already said, was that the Monopoly Commission could in such a case—and they would be rare cases—function in the same way as a specially constituted departmental committee.
The right hon. Gentleman has just referred to the case of price maintenance. I will be quite frank. It was to deal with that kind of problem that we felt it was desirable to have this Clause. It might be that one or two reports on different industries, it might be that a report on the egg-basket making industry referred to by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn)—I do not know whether it is monopolistic or not—showed some interesting point affecting price maintenance or some other general practice. The same thing might come up when they considered a second industry, and it might be desirable that we should ask the Commission to look into the question of price maintenance. In fact,

because of the interest expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House last year, my predecessor set up a committee to go into re-sale price maintenance. If we had had a Monopoly Commission available, we might have used it for such a purpose, because a Monopoly Commission would, over a period of time, have gathered considerable experience of individual industries and practices, and also perhaps would have filed in its records some useful information. It would involve less difficulty both for the Government and the committee, on the one hand, and also for industry on the other, to let the Monopoly Commission do the job rather than to set up a special departmental committee every time.
The hon. Member for Bucklow asked how long it would be before we would give the first reference to the Monopoly Commission. I think I can answer him quite sincerely that we would envisage a pretty long run before we asked the Commission to report on a general practice of this kind, because we would want it to have examined a number of specific industries and problems before it began to get together a body of information about these things.
4.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for Cambridge University was quite wrong in his interpretation of the Clause. When he took his illustration from the egg-basket making industry, he said that it might be a question of how far the practices of the egg-basket making industry in general affected the public interest, the universe, or the welfare of the State and this country. That is not the point. It is not the general activities of the egg-basket making industry, but the general practice, such as price maintenance or boycotts, or something operated by the egg-basket making industry, and the right hon. Gentleman's ju-jube industry, and two or three other industries. We want to look at the general practice involved, not at the general effect on the one industry. We might want to look at a practice indulged in by a number of industries to see whether that practice involves things which require some safeguards on the part of the State, because there might be some industry somewhere else which had never been before the Commission which was contemplating instituting a


scheme of price maintenance, and it would be desirable to have a general report on that subject.

Mr. Pickthorn: I think both interpretations which the right hon. Gentleman has just put are wrong, both that which he attributed to me and his own. Surely what Subsection (1) of the new Clause provides for is not a report on the practices of the egg-basket manufacturing industry, nor is it a report on the practices of that industry and similar practices in other industries; what the Subsection deals with is the general effect on the public interest of that class of practices. That is something different from the practices, it is something different from what is otherwise the function of the Commission anywhere else in the Bill and, with every respect to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) and his understanding of his own language, it is something different from what he asked for in the Amendment he moved upstairs.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member for Cambridge University has stated now what we want. The hon. Gentleman has stated correctly what we want in this new Clause, and it is exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge was after in his speech on the Committee stage.
Finally, I should like to deal with the remark of the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) when he said that he felt that the Commission should not be asked to make reports in vacuo on a particular practice in general. I agree with that entirely, but, as I have said already to the hon. Member for Bucklow, this would only take place at longish intervals and after the Commission had had a chance of getting experience on particular cases and practices. Therefore it would not be a report in vacuo.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Could not the right hon. Gentleman look into that point in order to try to get it into the Clause? There seems to be a great difference between what he has said now about this happening only after the data is before the Commission by having made specific inquiries. I ask him to believe that my hon. Friend and myself are anxious to get this into good shape, and if he could consider this and could find it possible

to insert in another place such a provision, it would meet everyone in the House.

Mr. Wilson: I think we are probably after the same point on this, but we must be quite sure we are. I would certainly not intend to refer to any cases except where there had been some considerable experience—

Mr. Lyttelton: I am sorry to interrupt, but I thought the right hon. Gentleman was after the same point as we were, until he said that he would have used the Commission on the price maintenance matter, which was a sort of general essay by the Committee, but was not built up on any evidence taken upon oath concerning the particular practices of price maintenance in a particular industry. I thought he departed from it then. We should be satisfied if he would give us the assurance for which my right hon. and learned Friend has asked.

Mr. Wilson: I am not sure that the two right hon. Gentlemen are in exact agreement on what they want, from what they have just said, but I can give the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby the assurance that we would only do this after the Commission had been in being for some time, and after it has had some experience of the practices indulged in generally or specifically by the kind of industries, monopolies or restrictive practicing industries referred to. The Commission by that time would have a considerable amount of experience of such questions as, for instance, resale price maintenance. After it had had one of those cases it would be well fitted to undertake the general essay which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) does not want them to undertake on resale price maintenance. Therefore, although I think I can give the assurance sought by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby, I am not sure that I can give the assurance wanted by the right hon. Member for Aldershot.
One of the things said by the right hon. Member for Aldershot puts me in some difficulty. He said he would be opposed, for instance, to asking His Majesty's judges for essays from time to time on parricide or other things. The difference is that every case of parricide that comes to notice is automatically referred to His Majesty's judges and action


is taken upon it. It is not a fact that every case of resale price maintenance that comes to our attention will be referred to the Commission. I think that everybody in the country knows that parricide is undesirable and that, other things being equal, it should not be embarked upon. On the other hand, not everybody knows that resale price maintenance is a bad thing. I do not know whether it is or not. We have not yet had the report of the departmental committee. It might be useful for industries who are considering embarking upon a policy of resale price maintenance to have a report of this general character in front of them, pointing out the dangers of resale price maintenance, the things to be avoided by anyone going in for such a policy, and the safeguards which the community ought to have Therefore, I do not think that parricide and the other kind of thing are on terms of exact equality.
I am certainly prepared to give the assurance for which the hon. Gentleman asks. I do not know whether it is desirable to put this into the Clause; I should have thought not. I will certainly look at the Clause again and undertake to see whether the phrase "at any time" may have to be altered. We would not do so until the Commission were fairly well in the saddle and had seen a number of cases. Further, it would be desirable for the Commission to have experience of the number of practices in question in particular industries before a case was referred to them.
On the other hand, I could not suggest that the Commission, when being asked to present a report on resale price maintenance, should confine their report to those particular cases which they had already examined. They might want to look more widely into the subject of resale price maintenance, just as the present departmental committee is looking more widely into that question. Subject to this, I shall be glad to have another look at the matter. If it is possible to introduce something which will meet the point of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, perhaps in another place, I shall be glad to see if that can be done.

Mr. Scollan: I welcome this new Clause for an entirely different reason from that given by the President of the Board of

Trade. The reason is that it gives entirely new powers to the Board of Trade. Subsection (2) of the new Clause makes it quite clear that it in no way interferes with the powers already granted in the Bill for the Commission to inquire into monopolies. If that is the case, Subsection (1) must contain something new and entirely different; it certainly does, something we should have had in this country during the past 10 years—that is, the power for the Board of Trade to instruct somebody to inquire into a malpractice from which the public were suffering, due not to a monopoly, but to a kind of understanding between traders that the public had to be fleeced in a certain direction. That is the power, even if that is not what it means.
It is laid down very clearly that:
The Board of Trade may at any time require the Commission to submit to them a report on the general effect on the public interest of practices. …
What kind of practices? [An HON. MEMBER: "Malpractices."] Yes, malpractices are very common in the trade. There may be a retail drapers' association serving the whole of the country, who fix a particular price on an article they are purchasing from the wholesaler or from the cotton mills. If they fix that price generally, and it gives them a margin of profit, they are the only people who have any say in what that margin will be. Obviously, it is a malpractice if they are charging too much. Who will determine what is too much and what is the correct amount?

Major Haughton: May I interrupt the hon. Member to ask whether he can give a single instance of a retail association fixing a price all over the country?

Mr. Scollan: The general practice in the retail trade for many years has been that when the wholesaler goes to the retailer and offers a particular article, he says that the wholesale price is X. The retail price, advised by the wholesaler, is X plus Y, giving a certain margin of profit.

Mr. Oliver Poole: Surely the hon. Member is not suggesting that these are new powers which the Clause gives to the Board of Trade. They are implicit in the whole Bill, which, as it


stands and without any question of the new Clause, gives to the Board of Trade all the powers they want.

Mr. Scollan: It is a Monopoly Bill. The case I am quoting is not a monopoly, but an understanding between traders, which is an entirely different matter. Some monopolies are an asset to the country and not a menace.

Mr. Nigel Birch: The Coal Board?

Mr. Scollan: Other monopolies are a menace. The Bill was originally introduced to find out those monopolies that will hamper and strangle both trade and industry for their own particular ends. That is its whole purpose. This Clause is something new. If hon. Members will read it they will see that by Subsection (2) it does not interfere at all with the Bill, and that Subsection (1) gives new powers to the Board of Trade. Consequently, those powers cannot be of any use unless they deal with these particular questions and not with those already provided for in the Bill.

Major Haughton: It was the President of the Board of Trade himself, at the beginning of the discussion on this Clause, who said that he did not think the Board of Trade should require the Commission to instigate an inquiry of this sort except after a lapse of time, or until they had gained considerable experience in a particular practice. I want to be quite clear, before I decide whether or not to vote for the Clause, whether the President has now assured the Committee that he will look into the wording of this Clause in order to implement what he himself has said—that there shall be a passage of time and that there shall be an accumulation of experience by the Commission before any investigation or report of this kind is required—as the Clause says—by the Board of Trade.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for having unavoidably missed his original speech and for dealing, perhaps, with a point already dealt with. My feeling on reading the Clause and hearing some of the arguments is that, as my right hon. Friends have pointed out, there is some legitimate point which the Government wish to cover. I

cannot help feeling, however, that the words they have chosen cover something far greater. Subsection (1) of the new Clause refers to
… the purpose of preserving, conditions to which this Act applies.
For the meaning of those words we have to look at Clause 3 of the Bill, and that Clause alone. In all other cases where the Commission is to investigate we have to look not only at Clause 3 but, while the conditions are mentioned in Clause 3, it is necessary in order to satisfy the conditions of Clause 2 to show that those conditions in fact prevail. In that case they are referred to the Commission not only for report, but for investigation. The striking fact about the new Clause is that there is no mention whatever of investigation; either as a consequence of the requirement proposed in the new Clause, or as a result of earlier references under Clause 2.
5.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) made it clear that what he had in mind was that the Commission may be asked to report on a practice which some investigation under Clause 2 had brought to light. But there is no such requirement in the new Clause. In reconsidering the wording of this new Clause, I hope the President of the Board of Trade will make it quite clear that the practices on which the Commission are invited to report are practices which they have investigated on references made to them under Clause 2 and not practices which have never been investigated. In the new Clause there is no mention of investigation having taken place, nor to take place in consequence of a request for a report. I think the right hon. Gentleman will see the necessity for revising the new Clause on the lines that have been suggested.

Mr. Lyttelton: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to be willing to look into the two points, first that there should be a certain lapse of time and, secondly, that the reports of the Commission should be based on the results of their previous investigations. If those are the two assurances he has given, I shall be content.

Mr. Wilson: Based upon, but not confined to.

Mr. Lyttelton: Not confined to the investigation. Such words as "the general effect of such practices of a specified class into which investigation has been made," would meet our point. If I am rightly interpreting the undertaking, I am willing that the Committee shall pass on.

Mr. Wilson: I want to be quite clear about the assurance. Certainly it would be based on previous reports, but not confined to previous reports in dealing with practices which have been brought out by previous reports. In doing that, the Commission would have to look into the wider implications, and not merely at the reports concerned.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal) considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Public interest.)

In determining whether any conditions to which this Act applies or any things which are done by the parties concerned as a result of, or for the purpose of preserving, any conditions to which this Act applies, operate or may be expected to operate against the public interest, all matters which appear in the particular circumstances to be relevant shall be taken into account and, amongst other things, regard shall be had to the need, consistently with the general economic position of the United Kingdom, to achieve—

(a) the production, treatment and distribution by the most efficient and economical means of goods of such types, in such volume and at such prices as will best meet the requirements of home and overseas markets;
(b) the organisation of industry and trade in such a way that their efficiency is progressively increased and new enterprise is encouraged;
(c) the fullest use and best distribution of men, materials and industrial capacity in the United Kingdom; and
(d) the development of technical improvements and the expansion of existing markets and the opening up of new markets.—[Mr. Wilson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Wilson: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is an attempt on our part to define the public interest for the purposes of this

Bill. In the Second Reading Debate, and in the Committee stage, hon. Members opposite pointed out that the phrase "public interest" was used a number of times and that it was desirable to define it. I made an attempt on Second Reading to define it in general terms. The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) put down an Amendment in Committee of which I accepted the principle, and I accepted the task of trying to find a suitable definition of "public interest." The new Clause I am now proposing is the best we can do. I hope it will meet the requirements of the right hon. and learned Member, who convinced us of the need of such a Clause, and I hope the House will be prepared to agree to it.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for adopting the point of view I urged, that public interest should be defined. Like every parent, even of words, I have a slight preference for my own form which I put forward in the Committee stage, but, as the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the principle and has embodied a considerable number of the ideas I suggested in my Amendment, I do not suggest that the House should negative the new Clause, or make the Amendments which would be necessary in order to give effect to my suggestions. Therefore, while not in any way wishing to prejudice what will be said by my hon. Friends if you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, call Amendments put down to the new Clause, I again wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for accepting the principle of definition which I advanced.

Mr. Pickthorn: May I ask if you intend to call my Amendments to the proposed Clause, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Mr. Speaker has not selected the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn).

Mr. Pickthorn: Perhaps I might explain the purpose of the Amendments. I admit this is rather difficult and may appear rather trifling, but I do not think it is so in the upshot. If my Amendments were agreed to, the new Clause would read, leaving out the necessary verbiage of the draftsmen, as follows:
In determining the public interest, amongst other things, regard shall be had to


the need to seek resolutely and continuously the production of goods of such types … as shall best meet requirements.
I think that all the points I wish to put might have been erected on an Amendment to exchange "shall" for "will." If the word "will" is put here, it is merely temporal in effect and the whole Clause assumes that somewhere there is a blue print of the public interest. It may be a wholly Socialist conception that the public interest shall be everything controlled and managed by the State, or the opposite, that nothing shall be controlled or managed by the State. The form of words as here printed assumes that there is a standard somewhere, just as there is a standard yard. That assumption is objectionable because it is untrue, and there is a practical objection because it attempts to set off the new law on the wrong foot. The most we are entitled to ask about public interest is, is this designed, and reasonably designed, to produce all the good things under (a), (b), (c) and (d)? We are not entitled to ask, is this in fact such as will produce those things, all those things, and nothing but those things? I submit that the words as drafted make the second demand necessary.
I wish we had before us the statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer read out after Question time today, because that would have marked very neatly the contrast between the way in which this Clause is drafted and the way in which I think it ought to be drafted. It was difficult to follow the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but one thing, I think, must have struck everybody who listened to it, and that is how carefully he said over and over again that the obligation was to do this or that calculated to achieve the maximum of something or other—not that we were bound to do something which would achieve X, but that what we are bound to do is to do something which is calculated to achieve the maximum possible of X.
That is quite a different thing, and that, in my submission, is the proper way to approach the question of the public interest. Once that question is approached in this way of trying to make it an obligation to achieve X—to achieve the public interest, the whole public interest and

nothing but the public interest—we are, in fact, getting a rigidity and an extreme doctrinairism which I believe will make this Clause either nugatory—something which is just mere pious uplift—or will make it excessively constrictive.
I could explain the point at very great length. [Laughter.] Well, I could, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite provoke me, I will. It is not a perfectly simple point, especially when one does not know what proportion of one's audience has taken a previous interest in the Bill. I will not say I hope that I have put the point in such a way as to convince, but I hope I have put the point in such a way that it is clear what the point is. I hope it will be admitted that it is a real point, and I hope also that we may have some answer on that point and strictly upon it.

Mr. Shepherd: I do not know whether it is your intention, Major Milner, to call my Amendment to the proposed new Clause.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No.

Mr. Shepherd: In that case, I hope you will permit me to make a number of references to it. No one can say that the definition of "public interest" in this new Clause is comprehensive. I feel that the quality of goods is important, because there are many attempts now being made by the Government to restrain people from making goods of inferior quality. The utility scheme, for example, tries to enforce a standard of production in the furniture trade. Obviously, the time will come when the utility scheme for furniture will have to go by the board and in its place there will have to be some other means of maintaining a standard of quality.
It may well be that the means which industry will have to adopt to maintain a standard of quality which is very definitely in the public interest, will be of a restrictive nature. All I want to stress is that in determining whether a certain form of restrictive practice is or is not in the public interest, regard ought to be paid by the Commission to whether that restriction is designed to maintain a standard of quality. If it is, obviously it ought to receive very considerable consideration, and the Commission ought not to pronounce against it without a good deal of investigation.
5.15 p.m.
I am very pleased that the Government have seen fit to accept the suggestion made, I believe, in the first place, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) in defining the public interest. With my right hon. and learned Friend, I believe that his definition is better than that arising from the combined efforts of the Board of Trade. We cannot quarrel about points of detail, because the important thing is that in this Bill we have an attempt to define the public interest in relation to trade and industry. To my mind this is a very substantial step forward. We are leaving behind the era of uncontrolled competition, and we have got to put in its place something different. I believe that some standard of public interest such as is contained in this Clause is a real step forward. I am glad to think that this progressive step came not from hon. Members opposite but from this side of the House.
I hope that when the Commission reports, it will have regard to the standards which are here laid down. When it decides that a practice is against the public interest I hope it will measure the extent to which it is against the public interest according to the standards which have been laid down in this Clause. In that way, a good deal of dissension will be avoided. Those who are trying to take an objective view of the position will be able to see more readily where the truth lies. While it is not possible to put this into the Bill, I hope the Commission will in all cases recognise that requirement and indicate how their judgment compares with the standards contained in this Clause.

Mr. Charles Williams: I was extremely amused to hear the various attempts to define the phrase "public interest." I was certainly relieved to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) say that he thinks that this Clause will meet the point, but I wonder who will decide what is the public interest. Let me take one simple illustration. It is quite possible that the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) might think that it is in the public interest to have much more and much better beer. On the other hand, the Chancellor of the

Exchequer might take precisely the opposite point of view. That is a possibility. In the circumstances, obviously the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would prevail. On the other hand, the situation might be the other way round. I am only using that as a simple illustration of the fact that there are vast differences of opinion in this country as to what is the real public interest regarding any trade or business which may be affected by the provisions of this Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd), in an interesting and able speech, said that at present it is rather in the public interest to have more restrictive practices, although I think there is a very considerable feeling for reversing that opinion and for having a great deal more competition. One of the objects of the Clause is to see that competition is fair in certain ways, as well as to enable certain other things to happen. For that reason, I strongly support my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) in saying that instead of the rather loose wording of this Clause, it would have been better if some of the great care which was taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the statement which he read earlier in the House today, had been put into the wording of this Clause.
Perhaps I might have the attention of the President of the Board of Trade. I quite appreciate that he is not capable of taking in a sustained argument for any length of time. I appreciate the difficulty and how quickly his mind gets tired of these matters. It might be as well at some other stage of this Bill to get the Chancellor of the Exchequer or a Law Officer to try to give a clearer and better definition on the lines of those already given for other purposes, and insert it in this new Clause. I make that suggestion wholly in the interests of the Bill, because I am sure that in the immediate future there will be great troubles and difficulties in connection with the public interest. There will be many decisions given, and many of them will be very far from reflecting public pleasure in the Government.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Annual report.)

(1) The Board of Trade shall—

(a) in the first three months of the yeas nineteen hundred and fifty lay before both Houses of Parliament a report as to the operation of this Act up to the end of the year nineteen hundred and forty-nine; and
(b) in the first three months of each subsequent year, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report as to the operation of this Act in the year preceding that in which the report is so laid.

(2) Every such report shall, amongst other things, include a review in such detail as the Board think fit of the suggestions and requests (not being suggestions and requests which appear to the Board to be frivolous) which have been made to the Board for the reference of any particular matter to the Commission under the provisions of this Act:

Provided that where a request has been made to the Board by a body which in the opinion of the Board could properly claim to represent, for the purposes in question, the interests of any of the following, that is to say—

(a) consumers in Great Britain or a substantial proportion of those consumers;
(b) the organised workers of Great Britain;
(c) trade in Great Britain;
(d) industry in Great Britain; agriculture in England and Wales or in Scotland;
(f) any class of local authorities in England and Wales or in Scotland;

the review shall, if the body so require, con-tam a specific statement that the request has been made by that body, and of the description of goods to which the request relates.—[Mr. Wilson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Wilson: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The motive for this new Clause arose out of the discussions during the Committee stage and was again due to a proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick). When he moved his Amendment in Committee, he had in mind the danger that some future President of the Board of Trade might wish to allow this Bill, when it becomes fin Act, to become a dead letter. He felt that if it were possible to publish at stated intervals a list of the cases which had been brought before the Board of Trade by certain responsible bodies, there might be a less danger of the Measure becoming a dead letter. I gave an assurance that I would consider that matter, and this new Clause is the result of that consideration.
What we now propose is, first, that there should be an annual report laid

before the House on the general working of the Monopoly Commission and that we should further undertake to publish any request made by one of these various bodies that a case should be referred to the Commission. There was a further point on which I gave an assurance on the Committee stage which is not included in the Bill. I do not think that it needs to be. That was that I undertook to publish in the Board of Trade Journal, at intervals of less than a year, cases brought before the Board of Trade by organisations of the kind referred to in this new Clause. I hope that my hon. Friend and those of his colleagues, and indeed hon. Members on both sides, who pressed for this matter to be dealt with will feel that this new Clause deals satisfactorily with the situation.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It seems to us that this new Clause falls not only into two Subsections but into two parts of very different merits. The first part of the Clause deals with the laying before Parliament of a report as to the operation of this Measure. With that we are in entire agreement. Perhaps I may be allowed to mention an Amendment in the names of myself, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) as it will shorten the discussion later. In that Amendment we suggest that the report should be laid in the first two months of the year instead of the first three months as proposed in the Clause. The reason is simply that three months would bring one to the end of March, by which time this House is beginning to look towards the Budget. It is extremely difficult after that time to find a date for consideration of a matter such as this because Government time is very congested and there are the Supply days with which to deal. It is very difficult in those circumstances to find time for the discussion of a matter such as this, which we should be anxious to discuss. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman may be able to consider laying the report in the first two months, which would give us the month of March as an additional period in which there would be an opportunity for discussion.

Mr. Wilson: I am very sorry that I failed to refer to this matter when I moved


the Second Reading of the Clause. I fully accept the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I shall be quite happy to accept the Amendment on this point which he has mentioned, and which I understand he is to move later.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman and I am glad that we have had this opportunity of putting quite briefly before the House what was in our minds.
With regard to the second part of the Clause there is an aspect which worries me a great deal. That is why there is also an Amendment, in my name and the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot and my hon. Friend the Member for Bucklow to leave out Subsection (2). As the Clause stands at the moment the report
shall … include a review … of the suggestions and requests …
which are made to the Board of Trade. The Clause itself says that the Board will except from the review suggestions which are frivolous, but it must of necessity follow, however, that there must be suggestions which the Board of Trade has not thought fit to refer to the Commission. The real question of principle in this part of the Clause is whether, when suggestions have been made, and especially when they have been made by certain bodies, they shall be referred to in the review when the Board of Trade has not seen fit to refer them to the Commission.
I quite appreciate what has operated on the minds of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. They have seen one possible evil, which is that the Board of Trade will not refer sufficient matters and will, in the Board of Trade, stop certain matters from going forward. On the other hand, let us consider the position in which the Board of Trade has acted perfectly properly. It has considered a complaint made to it and after the preliminary investigation made by the Board of Trade, which I agree must not be exhaustive but must still be a general consideration of whether there is a prima facie case, the Board of Trade has decided not to refer the matter to the Commission.
Then the report containing this review is issued showing that in the case of Snooks & Co., a suggestion was made by so and so, and that the Board of Trade did not refer it to the Commission. What is the position of Snooks & Co.? A complaint has been made, and for good reason, in this hypothetical case which I am stating, the Board of Trade has said "There is nothing in this point and we need not take up the time of the Commission with it." But so far as Snooks & Co. are concerned, the fact of the complaint is then published, and they are faced with that delightful body of people whom we all love so much, who go around saying, "There is no smoke without fire." Hon. Gentlemen in all quarters of the House know that such people are one of the greatest plagues of humanity in this as in every other age.
I agree that this is a matter in which one has to balance difficulties. I have tried to appreciate the view which the hon. Member for Uxbridge put forward. Despite that, I come down against this suggestion. I now wish to try to deal with the matter from the point of view of the hon. Member for Uxbridge, and I take a case in which the Board of Trade has acted improperly. In that event there would be nothing to prevent the hon. Gentleman from training his broadsides on the President of the Board of Trade in this House by Question, by use of the Adjournment Motion, and, if the matter were of sufficient importance, by a Motion of Censure. I do not rule that out on this hypothesis that the Board of Trade has squashed something which ought to be put before the Commission. Under such circumstances I should be glad to see put down a Motion which would censure the President of the Board of Trade who had done that, irrespective of his party.
5.30 p.m.
Therefore, I feel that the hon. Gentleman has his remedy on that side, whereas in the other matters which I have ventured to put before the House, I do not think that the people affected will ever catch up with the lie. It is one of the great difficulties which we all know in public life. We get thick-skinned in experience and we are able to take it fairly easily, but we know, nevertheless, that catching up with the lie once said is a very difficult matter. Therefore, on


balance, having tried to consider the matters carefully, I think this is unfair to undertakings which will have no chance of answering a complaint, and that the other matter which the hon. Member for Uxbridge so forcibly expressed in Committee can be met by Parliamentary action. Through your kindness, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I have dealt with matters which will be raised by the Amendment but which really go to the root of the Clause. I thought it convenient to deal with them on the Clause so that we could deal with the Amendment more shortly.

Mr. Beswick: As the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) said, this new Clause deals with two different matters. The first part embodies the principle which I put forward on the Committee stage, namely, that there should be the annual report of the working of the Commission. The President has completely met the principle behind the Clause which we put forward in his rather better worded Clause. I should like to express my appreciation of his acceptance of that principle. So far as the second part of the Clause is concerned, we did put forward other proposals. The second part of the Clause is designed to meet those proposals. Again I welcome and express our appreciation of the alternative proposals of the President.
May I say how I think the second part of the new Clause will work out? The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby said that Mr. Snooks may make a complaint to the President, and the President turn it down for reasons which may be good, or bad, or merely may be due to the indifference of the President at the time. As I see it, Mr. Snooks would then have the opportunity of going to his trade association which might be, as was said by one hon. Member, the British Chambers of Commerce. They, as I see it, would now come under the description in the new Clause. He would go to his organisation, and would say, "This is the case, as I see it. These are the relevant facts. I have put it before the President of the Board of Trade for him to pass on to the Commission, and the President has refused to pass the matter on." I imagine that the kind of organisation

described in this Clause would have resources at its disposal and responsibly-minded individuals to go into the case. If they decided to back the complaint, it would be put before the President again. If, after further consideration, the President stated that he was not prepared to pass it on to the Commission, he would have to publish that fact, and publish the details appertaining to the case.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it would be possible for Members of Parliament to raise the matter in the House, if they felt that the President had improperly prevented the matter from going before the Commission. With respect, I feel that we are sometimes too ready to say that the remedy lies in action in this House. I do not think we should expect this House to be the centre for sorting out grievances. It should be possible for us to devise machinery to enable members of society to obtain redress without in the first place coming to this House. I should have thought that was democracy, and a more efficient method of running our country. After all, we hear a lot from the Opposition Front Bench about the merits of de-centralisation. I am trying to incorporate a certain measure of de-centralisation into this matter, and to make it possible for certain bodies to ventilate grievances in the first instance without the necessity of raising them on the Floor of the House.
A matter coming from a trade association, from an important body, to the President of the Board of Trade would receive a little extra consideration. He would know that if he turned it down, he would have to publish that fact. That in itself would encourage the President of the day to give it a little extra consideration. I feel that this Clause can only do good. It will give publicity to the general working of the Commission and to those cases which the President has prevented the Commission from considering. For those reasons, I hope the House will accept the new Clause as it stands.

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) has dealt entirely with the subjective aspects of this new Clause, and with some of those I am in sympathy; but he mistook what my right hon. and learned Friend said when he mentioned Snooks and Company, because he was dealing, as I am, with the objective parts of the Clause. This


is my objection, which I think is valid and which should appeal to hon. Members opposite. The Board of Trade have to make a report about suggestions and requests, other than frivolous ones, that have been made to the Board for reference to the Commission. They would include as the hon. Member said, those submissions and requests which the Board of Trade had turned down. They would also include submissions and requests which the Board of Trade had, in fact, passed on to the Commission. I do not like the idea of information, if we like to put it that way, laid against certain firms, or group of firms, of monopolistic practices against the public interest, lying on the table for an indefinite time, it may be a year, before the findings of the Commission are published. That is the objection I have to that part of the Clause.
There may be a prima facie case where a matter should be inquired into, but I do not like the idea, and I think it is contrary to general principles of fair play, that an accusation which the accused person has no means of combating should lie on the table in the Commission's report for a very long time. I think that is vicious. That is the part of the Clause which I do not like. I quite agree with the hon. Member's preoccupation in trying to see that the Board of Trade do not unnecessarily filter requests which are not of a frivolous nature. That is why I said he dealt with the subjective part of the Clause. I ask the Government to deal with the objective part. Great embarrassment or injustice might be inflicted on an accused firm or trade association if requests for inquiries were made public, with perhaps allegations, before the evidence had been heard. It may be that, in its early life, the Commission will have a great deal of work to do, and all these things may lie on the table for a very long time.

Mr. Tiffany: Without having to wait for the end of the period, surely the Board of Trade would notify the organisation which made the complaint and also the individual concerned?

Mr. Lyttelton: I do not know whether we are talking at cross purposes. The situation I envisage is that a competitor or a consumers' organisation may lodge a complaint against certain restrictive

practices which they allege have been against the public interest or against their interest, and which have been indulged in by a certain group of manufacturing companies. Under this new Clause the Board of Trade is obliged to publish the nature of the submission and request which the consumers' organisation has mentioned without any obligation either to hear the other side of the case or to put in anything else except the request. That is bad. I should have thought that the hon. Member's object would have been fully met even if this provision were kept out. At the end of every year the Board of Trade has to publish an account of what it has been doing. I do not mind in the least then if it is obligatory on the Board of Trade to say what submissions they have turned down. What I do not like is to have unanswered—from the nature of things they are unanswerable—accusations lying on the table for an indefinite period.

Mr. Sparks: I should like to refer to the six sources from which suggestions and requests will be received for submission to the Commission for examination and report. I do not know in what form these requests or suggestions will be made, or precisely in what way the information will be laid and by what bodies. These six categories may be very wide in their scope There may be a good reason for them being of so wide a character, but if it is not intended to confine sources of information to these six categories, I would suggest to my right hon. Friend the consideration of one or two other additional sources of information. My right hon. Friend has the power, and I believe that he is already using it, to set up a range of development councils for various industries. The responsibilities and functions of these development councils will mean that a great deal of valuable information will be collated by them on conditions and factors which operate in certain industries.
I should like to see some liaison between the work of the development councils and the work of this Commission. I should like to see them included in this list of organisations which might refer to the Board suggestions and requests to be considered by the Commission. Obviously, they will be concerned with the welfare and the development of certain industries. In the course of their


work they will come into possession of valuable information which they could request the Commission to investigate. By that means they would assist considerably the industries with which the development councils are respectively concerned.
5.45 p.m.
In this new Clause the categories (c), (d) and (e) relate to trade in Great Britain, industry in Great Britain and agriculture in England and Wales or in Scotland. It may be that what I am asking for is already incorporated within those categories. I should like to know. I think that to leave the development councils outside and not to give them this opportunity of making a request or suggestion to the Commission may detract, to some extent, from the full value which we hope to get from this new legislation. I should also like to mention the very valuable information and suggestion which might come from scientific and technological quarters. We know that there is a tendency on the part of established industry not to pay too much regard to scientific and technical knowledge which does not immediately affect their own interests.

Major Haughton: By what right does the hon. Gentleman make an accusation of that sort? The amount of money spent by private firms on research in connection with the Department completely belies that statement.

Mr. Sparks: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. There is ample evidence—and if time were available it could be given—where many valuable inventions have been bought up by monopolies and have not been allowed to operate.

Mr. Lyttelton: May we take it from those remarks that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with the Swan Report or that he has not read it?

Mr. Sparks: It is all very well, but that is a fact.

Major Haughton: No, it is not.

Mr. Sparks: We beg to differ.

Mr. Lyttelton: May I have an answer to my question? Has the hon. Member read the Swan Report, and are we to take it that his present remarks mean that he disagrees with its findings?

Mr. Sparks: There is no need for me to read the Swan Report. My experience of industry in this country is sufficient to justify my statement. It is well known amongst those on this side of the House, if not amongst hon. Members opposite, that what very often happens in monopoly undertakings is that inventions are bought and are put on the shelf and pigeonholed because it is not in the interests of the monopoly to adopt them in their trade.

Mr. Lyttelton: Is that a circumlocution which means that the hon. Member has not read the official report which deals with this subject?

Mr. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt?

Mr. Lyttelton: I asked the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) a question.

Mr. Wilson: We hear this Swan Report bandied about by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) on every conceivable occasion.

Mr. Lyttelton: What does the Minister mean by saying that? I have mentioned it once before in this House.

Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned it just now. He mentioned it to the Parliamentary Secretary on the last occasion when he spoke, and he mentioned it on a previous occasion.

Mr. Lyttelton: What is the good of having reports if we are not to mention them?

Mr. Wilson: I should like to make it plain to the right hon. Gentleman who, I know, has read the Swan Report, that it does not deny what my hon. Friend has just said. It says that it asked for evidence to be brought and has not had that evidence produced. It does not make a categorical statement.

Mr. Lyttelton: This is a mere quibble of a most discreditable kind because the Swan Report says—I have not got it with me and I cannot give the actual words—that accusations are frequently bandied about that patents have been bought up and suppressed for the benefit of this or that group of industries. It says that they have asked that any evidence in support of these statements should be made available and that that evidence has not been made available. To


ordinary blunt people that means that these accusations are without foundation, and I repeat that.

Mr. Sparks: I adhere to what I have said This is not the occasion where one can develop that matter to its fullest extent. But even if hon. Members opposite are correct, I feel that a valuable source of information and suggestion could come from scientific and technical bodies on matters affecting the work of this Commission. We all know the importance of scientific and technical development in this country in the years ahead because, unless we can put our industrial productivity on the highest plane scientifically and technologically, we are not likely to be able to hold our own in the markets of the world. Therefore, a case should be made for those engaged in scientific and technical research to be able to make representations to the Board that certain factors and information of which they are in possession shall be considered by this Commission. The President has the power at any time, if he thinks the request is a frivolous one, to do nothing more about it. Therefore, the point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman opposite is adequately covered, because the President himself will not allow to be referred to the Commission matters which he considers are not of sufficient importance. However, I would ask him to say a word or two about those two valuable sources of information which can be made available to the Monopoly Commission, namely, that wealth and experience which will be gathered by the development councils, and also from scientific and technological resources.

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope I can put shortly what seems to be the objection to Subsection (2). I do not feel sure that the objection is one which is not rebuttable, but I hope I can put it more shortly than it has been put. First, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you know, but perhaps the rest of the House does not, what the word "frivolous" means, and it may be convenient if we get it exact before we go any further. I know because I have looked it up in the dictionary. "Frivolous" means:
Of little or no weight, value or importance; not worthy of serious consideration.
That is its primary meaning, and its secondary meaning, which is in connection with the law, is "manifestly insufficient."
It seems to be that the objection to Subsection (2), which may not be irrebuttable, is that the effect of Subsection (2)—if we may stick to Snooks and Company—will be that the Board of Trade will certify that the charge brought against Snooks and Company was not worthy of the attention of the Commission, was of some weight and importance, but not manifestly insufficient or futile. That is what the Board of Trade is bound to do as against Snooks and Company under this Subsection, and without giving Snooks and Company any opportunity to answer the charge. If that is not the effect of Subsection (2) I hope the President will explain why; if I am right that that is the effect, then clearly it requires some defending. I do not say there is not enough defending to be done.
I do not know whether you will allow me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to refer to the Amendment standing in my name, namely, to leave out "the organised workers of Great Britain," and insert "the T.U.C."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): indicated assent.

Mr. Pickthorn: Then I will not refer to it later. If I read the proviso properly it says:
where a request has been made to the Board by a body which … could properly claim to represent … (b) the organised workers of Great Britain;
Not some of the organised workers, or organised workers, but a section who could claim to represent the organised workers. I do not know whether the draftsman meant that to refer to the Trades Union Congress and nobody else, but on the words here it seems to me that nobody but the T.U.C. could claim under paragraph (b) to represent the organised workers of Great Britain. If I am right in that, then surely it should be specifically stated here under (b) the Trades Union Congress and not left as a matter of inference. If, on the other hand, paragraph (b) is not intended to cover the Trades Union Congress and nothing else but the Trades Union Congress, the words ought to be altered. It ought to read "some organised section of the workers of Great Britain" or something of that sort, and not the words as drafted.

Mr. Tiffany: I wish to emphasise the point raised by the hon. Member for


Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). Even if we took the step he suggested, that the T.U.C. should be substituted for "the organised workers," there are some who are not in that organisation, so that even the T.U.C. would not cover the phrase "the organised workers of Great Britain." I fail to see why, after having specified a substantial proportion of the consumers, after having specified any class of local authorities and the trade and industry in Great Britain, we say "the organised workers." I should like to see "trade unions" instead of the T.U.C.

Mr. Pickthorn: Or any of them.

Mr. Tiffany: Or a section—but the word "the" seems to prevent that happening. I hope the President will look at this again.

Mr. Shepherd: I think most people have been far too kind to this Clause. It arose out of a bad Amendment, and the second part of it still remains a bad piece of work. There is no doubt that its object is purely political and there will be no real value to industry in this country as the result of the operations of the second part of the Clause. It will not make the slightest difference to the treatment of monopolistic practices; all it will do is to provide a means by which people can run a vendetta against certain firms or industries; it will merely be a mudslinging apparatus.

Mr. Beswick: Would the hon. Member indicate which of the bodies described in this Clause is likely to run as he calls it, a vendetta against a particular organisation?

Mr. Shepherd: It is quite possible, for instance, that the Housewives League might take a part against the present Administration, and it is absolutely certain that if a Conservative Administration were in power, the organisations of the present Government and those associated with them in the industrial field would use the device of this Clause for the purpose of besmirching those against whom they had some grudge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I say this Clause is a thoroughly bad one, and I hope my hon. Friends will go into the Lobby against it because it can do no good. It cannot help the proper treatment of monopolies;

it can only allow people to engage in mud-slinging activities.
What happens? A complaint which has some substance is put on record but has not sufficient backing to go forward, yet the names of those firms or industries are associated in the public mind with some sort of practice which is not quite clean. It is quite wrong to have these things published at all, and I hope my hon. Friends will express their determination by voting against the Clause. The only possible value attached to the latter part of it is that under this Clause we can put in complaints against the goods supplied by nationalised industries. I hope the President will correct me if I am wrong, but I hope that under this Clause it will be possible for organisations or representative trade unions to make complaints against organisations which are nationalised corporations. I hope that will be the case, because it is the only saving grace in what is a thoroughly bad Clause.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Harrison: Are we not permitted to assume that the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) is perfectly in agreement with the Clause, in the main, when we read the Amendment which he has on the Order Paper? It would be possible for us to assume that he is generally in support of the Clause in view of the fact that he has only one minor Amendment down at the end of the list of Amendments.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Member would not be right in assuming that at all. I put down this minor Amendment in the hope that I was making a thoroughly bad Clause a little less bad.

Mr. Harrison: Is it the fact, Sir, that we are discussing all the other Amendments to the Clause at the present time?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have allowed reference to be made to them on the understanding that those which are selected will be moved formally and that we shall not have two discussions.

Mr. Daines: The hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd), as in Committee, approaches this problem from the economics of about a century ago and it is quite clear that


he looks upon the work of the Commission as if it were some prisoner in the dock process, and that is the end of it. I feel that the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttleton) has a very different conception from that of the use of the Commission. I thought there was a general recognition in Committee by leading Members of the hon. Member's own party that with the growth of large-scale economic units the time would come—when we have got over the first few months—where it would be desirable, in the interests of those business corporations themselves, that they should keep close to the Commission and, if necessary, have their cases examined by the Commission.
I think a great deal of disservice is done both to large-scale capitalism in its working as well as to collectivism in other forms if the Commission is only to be visualised as a criminal procedure. Nothing was further from the views of hon. Members on my own side of the Committee and certainly my point of view was shared by the right hon. Member for Aldershot. I would plead with the hon. Member for Bucklow, and also with the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), to wake up and realise that this is 1948, and we will never go back to 1848, however much they may desire it.

Mr. John Foster: It seems to me that the speech of the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) really had nothing to do with the new Clause at all and for that reason I will not follow it. I wanted to ask the President of the Board of Trade a short question about drafting which puzzles me. It will be noted in this Clause that in Subsection (2), paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) reference is made to "Great Britain." That seems to me a little strange, which is why I am asking for clarification, because in the other new Clause which the President moved he refers to:
The general economic position of the United Kingdom.
In paragraph (c) of that Clause he refers to:
The fullest use and best distribution of men … in the United Kingdom.
We, therefore, have the position that the position that the people who are allowed to make representations should come only from "Great Britain," which is a narrower conception than that of "United Kingdom".
To make my contusion even worse confounded, in Subsection (2), paragraph (e) of this new Clause there is reference to
England and Wales or in Scotland.
which I understand make up Great Britain. I do not see why three different expressions have been used. Is it intended that under paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) no representation can be taken from anybody, or any trade, industry or organised workers, who do not represent England, Wales and Scotland, while under paragraphs (e) and (f) representations from agriculture in England, Wales or Scotland are right? If that is the intention, I do not see why it is necessary. If the Commission are to have regard to the
general economic position of the United Kingdom
and to
the fullest use and best distribution of men … in the United Kingdom,
I should have thought that representation ought to be allowed from those parts of the United Kingdom which are envisaged in that way. I agree that under the Bill its application can be extended to Northern Ireland by an Order in Council, but it seems strange that these three different expressions are employed in parts which are so closely inter-connected and I would ask the President, when winding up, to explain why.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I would agree with the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) that, undoubtedly, as soon as we have recorded the fact that a complaint has been made there will be a slur on the undertaking. I would also like to make this point clear: there is bound to be an effect on the morale of the undertaking in the meantime. That cannot be avoided. As soon as it is decided that an investigation is to be made into some particular firm, there is bound to be an effect on the morale of the firm. We have to look carefully at the countervailing advantages of this Clause, if any.
I would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade this, because it will have very considerable bearing on the matter: how long are the delays likely to be? Does he visualise that it may be more than a year from the time that the fact that an investigation is to be made is recorded, before that investigation is


actually made? At what stage does he intend that the suggestions and requests should be recorded? I take it, from the fact that suggestions and requests are those which do not appear to the Board to be frivolous, that he will already have examined them to see whether they are frivolous, and I assume that he will have gone on to decide, in fact, whether those requests are to be referred to the Commission or not. Is that the point at which the suggestions and requests are to be recorded? Is it when the Board of Trade has already decided that they are to be referred to the Commission? I think we should know that, and not simply know the fact that they have been filed.
It also seems to me that the advantage, such as it is, of recording them in that way is that it will be possible for Members of Parliament to see what has happened to the request. They could ask: has it been followed up; has it been passed to the hands of the Commission; where is it; what has happened to it? Is that the object? If that is so—I see the right hon. Gentleman nods his head—are we to assume that the requests and suggestions will be dealt with by the Commission in the order in which they are filed or admitted or passed to them, or will there be a priority? It seems to me that is one of the reasons why it would be as well not to record them in that way as, obviously, some might be much more important and urgent than others. The Board of Trade and, indeed, the Commission will be able to choose which to investigate first.
These are points about which we must be clear in order that we can get some idea whether there are any countervailing advantages against the certain disadvantage, which is that it will be a disadvantage to the business which is to be investigated.

Major Haughton: With reference to the question put to the President of the Board of Trade by my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster), might I question the point he made that this Bill can be extended to Northern Ireland by an Order in Council? The general understanding over there is that a supplementary Bill, if it were so decided, would have to be passed through the Parliament of Northern Ireland before the Clauses of the Bill became operative over there.

Sir Peter Bennett: I wish to make only one point arising from the remarks of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). He said he knew. I always hesitate to use that word. I only think I know. There is a great difference. He was talking about the suppression of inventions and processes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) pointed to the Swan Report, saying that that exonerated those accused. The President of the Board of Trade said, "No, not quite: it only says that no evidence could be produced." We will not quarrel about the difference there.
I should like to tell the hon. Member for Acton how these things sometimes happen. It has been my lot to inquire into a number of these allegations that inventions have been held up and processes not developed. On making these inquiries I have found that if an invention or process was not taken up immediately it was for purely commercial reasons. What happened was that a process or invention was taken to the works and discussed by a company's own scientific, experimental people, who had evidence that they had something more advanced, or would have something more advanced in a short time, that would be better. We do not alter plants at frequent, short intervals. We do that only when a favourable opportunity occurs, and we take the latest developments instead of interim ones. It is said that some of these processes or inventions would effect savings. However, it happens quite often that the capital alterations required would far outweigh in cost the savings that might be effected by a new process.
What happens is that a man who has not had his invention taken up goes around disgruntled, and he starts rumours that it is being held back for some ulterior purpose, whereas the real reason is a purely commercial one. The firms of this country do not hold back inventions in that way. Neither private firms nor nationalised undertakings will take up new ideas immediately without inquiry. It is not a matter of prejudice or log-rolling; it is only a matter of commercial considerations.

Mr. Sparks: I wonder if the hon. Member has read the book of the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby


(Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) called "Monopoly." It substantiates what I was saying, and I should like to make a short quotation from it.

Mr. Lyttelton: Is this a question?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This matter is not strictly relevant but I did allow the hon. Member to whom reference has been made to intervene. I do not think, however, that we should continue to discuss the matter because it is not strictly relevant to the purpose of the proposed new Clause, which deals with the laying of a report.

Mr. Lyttelton: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member for Acton entitled to address the House twice?

Mr. Sparks: Further to that point of Order. I made a statement earlier, and I was challenged as to my accuracy. I think I am entitled to substantiate what I said.

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member is not asking a question.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I would observe that he also addressed the House more than once. However, on a matter of personal explanation, and with leave, I think the hon. Member is entitled to reply to the last speech.

Major Haughton: On a point of Order. I was the Member who challenged the remarks made by the hon. Member for Acton. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the abolition or the jettisoning of new inventions at all. The point he made, which I made bold to challenge, was that firms did not spend money on, and were not concerned with, scientific research. I think HANSARD will bear me out in that.

Mr. Lyttelton: Further to that point of Order. I am not suggesting that the House would not be willing to give the hon. Member for Acton leave to address it again but I think you said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I had addressed the House twice on this point. I did not do so. I interrupted the hon. Member to ask him a question. He is not now asking a question, but making another speech, and surely he ought to ask the leave of the House to do so?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think we need be quite so meticulous as that on a question like this. The hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) raised the question again in a rather concrete form. It seems reasonable that leave should be given to the hon. Member for Acton to reply in a word or two and that was what I understood he was about to do.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Do I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you have ruled that it will be out of Order to continue to discuss what two hon. Members on the other side have debated, the question of the use and suppression of inventions?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In my view, that question is not strictly relevant to the purpose of the proposed new Clause, which is to provide for the laying of reports at certain periods.

Mr. Sparks: In reply to the hon. Member who questions the veracity of my statement in regard to research and scientific information and technical knowledge, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) says in his book, at page 29:
Recently a Departmental Committee was appointed to consider the cotton textile machinery, and especially the affairs of Textile Machinery Manufacturers, Ltd., which has a virtual monopoly of many kinds of machinery essential to the textile industries. The Committee … reported that … it failed to realise some advantages of its large-scale organisation, particularly in specialisation, and it was deficient in provision for research and development, both matters not merely vital to the trust itself, but affecting the efficiency of the textile industry as a whole.
I suggest that that substantiates my point.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that the quotation which the hon. Member has read is not relevant to the point at issue.

Mr. H. Strauss: The sole matter between the two sides of the House concerns Subsection (2). I propose to address myself shortly to a point in Subsection (2) which, I think, has not been dealt with. That Subsection was completely misunderstood in that small portion of the speech of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) which dealt with the proposed new Clause


under discussion. He supposed, quite wrongly, that the only people who could put forward suggestions and requests were the people named in the six specific classes mentioned in the Subsection, in paragraphs (a) to (f). There is, of course, no such limitation whatsoever in Subsection (2) of the proposed new Clause.
Subsection (2) says that the report:
shall, amongst other things, include a review in such detail as the Board think fit of the suggestions and requests (not being suggestions and requests which appear to the Board to be frivolous) which have been made to the Board for the reference of any particular matter to the Commission.
They may be suggestions made by anybody whatsoever. The only point of the proviso is that, if the person putting forward the suggestion comes in one of the six classes named in the proviso, then the fact of his having made the suggestion has to be recorded, even if it appears to be frivolous. That is the only effect of the proviso. I am not saying that there may not be an arguable case for that. If we have sufficiently well selected bodies we may assume that they are good judges. There may possibly be a certain presumption that they would not put forward anything frivolous.
Let me point out the effects of the Subsection. First, the Board has to record the suggestions made to it, if they do not appear frivolous, even though they do not think them worth putting forward to the Commission. Is it not quite obvious that a record of that character must be capable of being injurious to those concerned, and that, therefore, we should be reluctant to make such a provision unless it could be proved to be necessary?
As my right hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, it is not necessary. The evil against which it is sought to guard can be avoided without this Subsection. If everything is to be recorded, notwithstanding the fact that it is not thought by the Board of Trade to be worthy to be referred to the Commission, and yet has to be labelled "non-frivolous," it is obviously capable of being injurious to the reputation of those concerned. Let me say a word about the proviso. I think that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Tiffany) was probably right in thinking that in paragraph (b) the initial word "the" was a mistake. I think that it is.

It would probably convey the meaning intended by the Government more accurately without the word "the." It may be that an even greater alteration is required.
The main point on which I intervened is to point out to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) that he is completely wrong in thinking that the bodies with which he was particularly concerned would be prevented from putting forward suggestions which they wished to be forwarded to the Commission by the fact that they did not come into any of the classes mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (f). They will not be so debarred. For those reasons, I hope that the Government will not press this new Subsection, which is in danger of being injurious to the people concerned, which cannot be needed, and which seeks to guard against evils which can be dealt with in other ways.

Mr. Wilson: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to one or two of the points raised. I cannot hope to deal with all of them. The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) made a point which has been echoed by a number of other hon. Gentlemen. I can well understand him raising this point. He took the case of a hypothetical Snooks and Company who might find themselves arraigned in the annual report because a complaint had been made against them, and it might well be, as he said, that we may never proceed to refer the case to the Commission. It may be a case which is not exactly frivolous but not such as to justify reference to the Commission, or it may be that a number of more important cases are awaiting action by the Commission. That is also the answer to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) about timing.
I can give him this partial assurance. It would not be our intention in publishing these reports to give the names of the firms. What we should do would be to give the specific class of goods. That may lead in some cases to the identification of the firms concerned. One can think of certain monopolies in a class of goods where to specify the goods, would be to name the trading organisation against whom complaint was made, but it would not be our intention ever to state that Snooks and Co. had been the


subject of complaint which might or might not be referred. It would merely be our practice, to take the case mentioned by the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) that egg baskets were the subject of a number of complaints, to refer to egg baskets but not to Messrs. Snooks & Co.
The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) referred to the development councils. I have a great faith in those councils. I do not think it would be appropriate to specify that any individual should be specially mentioned in those cases. There are a considerable number of councils in industries, set up before the Act in question, which would be competent to speak for their industries, as a development council might do. I think that the right thing would be that any industry which felt itself aggrieved by the working of some monopoly or price-fixing arrangement, and which wanted it to go on record in this way, should make its complaint through the national employers' organisation or through the provision in the Clause for the representation of the organised workers of the country. As both sides of the development council have access in that form, I think that would be the appropriate way to do it.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the case of trade unions and questioned whether it was not a slip on our part to leave the word "the" in the phrase which deals with organised workers. The inclusion of the word "the" was deliberate. It was our intention here, just as in other parts of the Subsection, to provide that only the single national organisation representing the organised workers should have the benefit of this particular part of the Subsection, just as only the single organisation on the side of industry, and not, for instance, the very small trade union, whom we would prefer to come to us through the T.U.C. or some other similar body claiming to represent the organised workers. I cannot accept in any case, although we have not yet debated the Amendment, the proposal of the senior Burgess for Cambridge University that the phrase "T.U.C." should be substituted for organised workers, because then the Clause would speak of anybody claiming to represent the T.U.C. and that would not be what we had in mind.
The hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) drew attention to the very different geographical areas which seem to be covered in different parts of the Bill. I do not think that there is any real contradiction in the use of the phrase "United Kingdom" in the Clause we debated earlier and the use of the phrase "Great Britain" here. It is in the public interest generally that there should be the best possible disposal of resources in the United Kingdom as a whole. Even if the operation of the Bill were in fact limited to Great Britain only, in that event it would still be our desire in Great Britain to see that there was the maximum possible production in the United Kingdom and the best possible use of resources in the United Kingdom. "Great Britain" was used in the Clause we are now dealing with about consumers in Great Britain, because it is, they who, in the present part of the Bill, would have the right of complaint. As to agriculture in England and Wales or in Scotland being stated separately, the answer is that we tried to draft this part of the Bill in relation to the particular bodies who might be making complaints. There are two separate farmers' unions, and therefore it was necessary to differentiate between them.
The hon. Member for Dumfries asked about the time that might be taken before a complaint published in the annual report was actually referred to the Commission. It may be a considerable time because of overloading of work on the Commission. His point that this may lead to some serious defect in the morale of the trade or industry or firm concerned need not be a very real one. It would always be possible for an hon. Member to put down a Question to see whether we intended to refer it, and the answer might be: "We are going to refer it," or "We are not going to refer it," or "We have referred it."
So far as morale is concerned, we are not talking about the small firm. Snooks & Co. may account for one-third of the output in question or it may not be Snooks & Co. at all; it is more likely to be the price-fixing association covering a large number of firms. These are not small private firms subject to persecution; they are generally pretty powerful bodies. The fact that somebody bad made a complaint about the activities of this body


might lead to a slight improvement in the practice of that body which would make it totally unnecessary ever again to refer to the Commission anything connected with that association or industry. There might be some positive gain, although I recognise the danger to which the hon. Member referred.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Lyttelton: The case which worries me is where a matter is referred to the Commission and is in the annual report and the Commission does not get round to considering it for perhaps six months. I do not admit the right hon. Gentleman's statement that provided the persecution is on a big enough scale, it does not matter. It is unfair that accusations should lie on the table without the organisation having the opportunity or rebutting them.

Mr. Wilson: I did not say that provided the persecution was on a big enough scale it did not matter. That is a slightly unwarrantable misuse of my words, but I will not pursue it. I see the point of the right hon. Gentleman, that a case might be referred to the Commission on, say, 30th December and be in the annual report and it might be six months or even longer before a final report goes out from the Commission, perhaps completely proving the innocence of the organisation. However, that would be equally true if we did not have an annual report or a publication of this kind. It might well be that on 30th December, if this House were sitting, an hon. Member might put down a Question asking whether the Board of Trade had referred to the Monopoly Commission a complaint about some organisation. The Board of Trade might say that they had done so on 20th December and then exactly the same result might apply—it might be six or nine months before the Commission produced a report. It does not mean necessarily that the organisation should not have some means of stating the case in the interval if there was a whispering campaign such as that referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). I have no doubt that an organisation

could find some way of dealing with it.

Major Haughton: While I do not necessarily disagree with what—

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. and gallant Member going to make a speech? An hon. Member cannot speak twice. After having spoken on the Report stage, an hon. Member can only ask a question.

Major Haughton: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. May I ask if the President of the Board of Trade will answer the question which I put to him about whether this Bill will apply to Northern Ireland when it becomes an Act, or whether a supplementary Bill will have to be passed over there?

Mr. Wilson: I should prefer to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman a full answer to that when we come to the Clause in question. I have not had time to look up the point. I think the answer is that it will require a separate Bill for Northern Ireland.

Clause read a Second time.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Clause in Subsection (1, a) to leave out "three," and to insert "two."
In view of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman in the course of our discussion, I move this formally.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1, b), leave out "three," and insert "two."—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Clause to leave out Subsection (2).
The point of this Amendment has really been covered by the earlier discussion. With your approval, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will move it formally and we can proceed to a Division.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the end of line 21 stand part of the proposed Clause."

The House divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 94.

Division No. 245.]
AYES.
[3.56 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Batham)
Cook, T. F.
Hale, Leslie


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A V.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Cove, W. G.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Crawley, A.
Hardman, D. R.


Attewell, H. C.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Hardy, E. A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Daggar, G.
Harrison, J.


Austin, H. Lewis
Daines, P.
Haworth, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)


Ayles, W. H.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Herbison, Miss M.


Balfour, A.
Davies, Haydn (St Pancras, S.W.)
Hicks, G.


Barstow, P. G.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hobson, C. R.


Barton, C.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Holman, P.


Battley, J. R.
Deer, G.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Bechervaise, A. E.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Horabin, T. L.


Belcher, J. W.
Delargy, H. J.
Hoy, J.


Benson, G.
Donovan, T.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Beswick, F.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)
Dumpleton, C. W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Edelman, M.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Blyton, W. R.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Janner, B.


Bottomley, A. G.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Jay, D. P. T.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Bowen, R.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Jenkins, R. H.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Johnston, Douglas


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Ewart, R.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Bramall, E. A.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Field, Capt. W. J.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Keenan, W.


Brown, George (Belper)
Foot, M. M.
Kendall, W. D.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Forman, J. C.
Kenyon, C.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
King, E. M.


Burke, W. A.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Kinley, J.


Byers, Frank
Gallacher, W.
Kirby, B. V.


Callaghan, James
Ganley, Mrs C. S.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.


Carmichael, James
Gilzean, A.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Champion, A. J.
Gooch, E. G.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Chaser, D.
Goodrich, H. E.
Leonard, W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Leslie, J. R.


Cluse, W. S.
Grey, C. F.
Lever, N. H.


Cocks, F. S.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Levy, B. W.


Collindridge, F.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Collins, V. J.
Gunter, R. J.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Guy, W. H.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Lipson, D. L.




Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Logan, D. G.
Pearson, A.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Longden, F.
Peart, T. F.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Lyne, A. W.
Perrins, W.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


McAdam, W.
Piratin, P.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


McAllister, G.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Thurtle, Ernest


McEntee, V. La T.
Popplewell, E.
Tiffany, S.


McGhee, H. G.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Timmons, J.


McGovern, J.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Titterington, M. F.


Mack, J. D.
Price, M. Philips
Tolley, L.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Pritt, D. N.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G.


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Proctor, W. T.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


McKinley, A. S.
Pryde, D. J.
Viant, S. P.


McLeavy, F.
Randall, H. E.
Wadsworth, G.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Ranger, J.
Walkden, E.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Walker, G. H.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rhodes, H.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Warbey, W. N.


Mann, Mrs. J.
Robens, A.
Watkins, T. E.


Marquand, H. A.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Weitzman, D.


Mellish, R. J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Mikardo, Ian
Rogers, G. H. R.
West, D. G.


Monslow, W.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Moody, A. S.
Royle, C.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Scollan, T.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Sharp, Granville
Wigg, George


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Mort, D. L.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Moyle, A.
Shurmer, P.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Murray, J. D.
Skeffington, A. M.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Nally, W.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Naylor, T. E.
Skinnard, F. W.
Willis, E.


Neal, H. (Clay Cross)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Snow, J. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Sorensen, R. W.
Wise, Major F. J.


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Woods, G. S.


Oldfield, W. H.
Sparks, J. A.
Yates, V. F.


Oliver, G. H.
Steele, T.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Paget, R. T.
Stokes, R. R.
Zilliacus, K.


Paling, Rt. Hon Wilfred (Wentworth)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.



Parker, J.
Stross, Dr B.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Parkin, B. T.
Stubbs, A. E.
Mr. Simmons and Mr. Wilkins.


Paton, Mrs F. (Rushcliffe)
Symonds, A. L.





NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Elliot, Lieut.-Col, Rt. Hon. Walter
Lucas, Major Sir J.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Assheton, Rt. Hon R.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Astor, Hon. M.
Fraser H. C. P. (Stone)
MacAndrew, Cot Sir C.


Baldwin, A E.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Barlow, Sir J.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)


Baxter, A. B.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)
Glyn, Sir R.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Birch, Nigel
Grimston, R. V.
MacLeod, J.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Bower, N.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Haughton, S. G.
Marples, A. E.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Marsden, Capt. A.


Butcher, H. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Carson, E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maune, J. C.


Challen, C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mellor, Sir J.


Channon, H.
Hollis, M. C.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Howard, Hon. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'cester)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hurd, A.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Crowder, Cam John E.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Jarvis, Sir J.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


De la Bère, R.
Jennings, R.
Pickthorn, K.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Keeling, E. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Donner, P. W.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Drayson, G. B.
Lambert, 'Hon. G.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Drewe, C.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Langford-Holt, J.
Raikes, H. V.


Duthie, W. S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj E. A. H.
Ramsay, Maj S.


Eccles, D. M.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Low, A. R. W.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)







Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Robinson, Roland
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Ropner, Col. L.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Teeling, William
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Sanderson, Sir F.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
York, C.


Savory, Prof. D. L.
Touche, G. C.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Turton, R. H.



Smithers, Sir W.
Vane, W. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Snadden, W. M.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Mr. Studholme and


Spearman, A. C. M.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
Major Conant.


Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 246.]
AYES.
[6.36 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Goodrich, H. E.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Grenfell, D. R.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Grey, C. F.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Attewell, H. C.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Austin, H. Lewis
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Pearson, A.


Ayles, W. H.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Peart, T. F.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Gunter, R. J.
Perrins, W.


Balfour, A.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Popplewell, E.


Barstow, P. G.
Hale, Leslie
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Barton, C.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Battley, J. R.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Pritt, D. N.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hardy, E. A.
Proctor, W. T.


Belcher, J. W.
Harrison, J.
Pryde, D. J.


Benson, G.
Haworth, J.
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Berry, H.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Randall, H. E.


Beswick, F.
Hicks, G.
Ranger, J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hobson, C. R.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Binns, J.
Holman, P.
Rhodes, H.


Blackburn, A. R.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hoy, J.
Robens, A.


Blyton, W. R.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Bottomley, A. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Royle, C.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Scollan, T.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Bramall, E. A.
Janner, B.
Sharp, Granville


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Jenkins, R. H.
Shurmer, P.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Johnston, Douglas
Simmons, C. J.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Skeffington, A. M.


Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Burden, T. W.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Skinnard, F. W.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Carmichael, James
Kendall, W. D.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Kenyon, C.
Snow, J. W.


Champion, A. J.
Kinley, J.
Solley, L. J.


Chater, D.
Kirby, B. V.
Sorensen, R. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Sparks, J. A.


Cobb, F. A.
Leonard, W.
Steele, T.


Cocks, F. S.
Leslie, J. R.
Stokes, R. R.


Collindridge, F.
Lever, N. H.
Sylvester, G. O.


Collins, V. J.
Levy, B. W.
Symonds, A. L.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Cook, T. F.
Logan, D. G.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Longden, F.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lyne, A. W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Cove, W. G.
McAdam, W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Daggar, G.
McAllister, G.
Tiffany, S.


Daines, P.
McEntee, V. La T.
Timmons, J.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
McGhee, H. G.
Titterington, M. F.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
McGovern, J.
Tolley, L.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Mack, J. D.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Diamond, J.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Viant, S. P.


Donovan, T.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Walker, G. H.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Warbey, W. N.


Dye, S.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Watkins, T. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Weitzman, D.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
West, D. G.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Marquand, H. A.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Ewart, R.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wigg, George


Fairhurst, F.
Monslow, W.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Field, Capt. W. J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Follick, M.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Foot, M. M.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Forman, J. C.
Moyle, A.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Murray, J. D.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Nally, W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Naylor, T. E.
Wise, Major F. J.


Gilzean, A.
Neal, H. (Clay Cross)
Woods, G. S.







Wyatt, W.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Yates, V. F.
Zilliacus, K.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Mr. Hannan.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Gridley, Sir A.
Pickthorn, K.


Astor, Hon. M.
Grimston, R. V.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Baldwin, A. E.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Renton, D.


Barlow, Sir J.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
Ropner, Col L.


Bennett, Sir P.
Haughton, S. G.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Boothby, R.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Bowen, R.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hurd, A.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Snadden, W. M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jennings, R.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Butcher, H. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Carson, E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Challen, C.
Langford-Holt, J.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Studholme, H. G.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lipson, D. L.
Sutcliffe, H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Turton, R. H.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Low, A. R. W.
Wadsworth, G.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Walker-Smith, D.


Digby, S. W.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Donner, P. W.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Drayson, G. B.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Drewe, C.
Marples, A. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
York, C.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Molson, A. H. E.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)



Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fraser H. C. P. (Stone)
Nicholson, G.
Major Conant and


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Nutting, Anthony
Brigadier Mackeson.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Mr. Shepherd: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in Subsection (2), to insert new paragraph:
(g) professional workers in Great Britain.
When we saw the list of persons or associations entitled to make specialised representation to the Board of Trade, representation which is to be published in the annual report, we were surprised to find that the professional worker had been excluded. One would have thought, as the Lord President of the Council was so hot in pursuit of the middle classes, that a special effect would have been made on this occasion to demonstrate that it was not merely an electioneering man œuvre, but represented a conversion to the opinion that all wealth was not produced by the workers, but that the middle classes and professional workers had some rights to existence in society. This is not a matter of mere words, but may effect vital interests.

Mr. Daines: The Amendment refers to organised workers of Great Britain. Could the hon. Member tell us which of the professions are not organised?

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Shepherd: As usual, the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines)

completely misses the point. On the last occasion he interrupted me he proceeded to make a speech quite divorced from the matter under discussion, and here again he entirely fails to realise what we are talking about. This was not merely a fetish. It is a fact, for example, that doctors might believe that penicillin was being manufactured under conditions which led to a price higher than that which should obtain, and they might wish to make representation to the Board of Trade with a view to having it considered by the Monopoly Commission. Under the interpretation we place on the list, it would not be right for the Board of Trade to publish that representation in the annual report. We want to see that the position of doctors and all professional men, solicitors and accountants and so on, is in no way inferior to that of organised workers in the trade union sense.
It may well be that the Government have come to the conclusion that professional workers such as doctors and solicitors are covered by the second item in the list. If that is so, I am sure the professional workers will be gratified that they are now put on the same level as the organised workers of the trade union movement, from whom


hon. Members opposite have so much support and to whom they give so much support. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to clarify our minds as to the exact position of professional workers in this matter.

Mr. Oliver Poole: I beg to second the Amendment.
It might have been thought, and I believe the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) thought, that professional workers were organised and that doctors and solicitors might be included under Subsection (2) (b). When I first read that Subsection I thought they were included, until it was pointed out to me by my hon. Friends that they were not included. When the President of the Board of Trade replied to various points in the discussion on this Subsection, he said that he would receive representations only from organised workers in the T.U.C. That would specifically exclude those organised bodies of professional workers who would not be in a position to be represented through the T.U.C. It seemed to us that, particularly in the case of doctors, dentists, and surgeons, where there might be some practices connected with medicines or patent medicines, that there was a logical basis for suggesting that those professional workers should be allowed to make representations through their own organised bodies in the same way as other organised workers.

Mr. Wilson: This Amendment has quite a lot to commend it, and I would not resist it in principle. But we do not want to give every independent body of professional workers the same rights in this respect; there might perhaps be some small bodies not remotely concerned with the goods in question. Subsection (2, b) says, "the organised workers of Great Britain," and that will not permit of a very small trade union, except in so far as it operates through the organisation representing the organised workers, being separately mentioned. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) made a strong point when he referred to doctors who might be very much concerned with the supply of certain pharmaceutical products, and I would be prepared to accept the Amendment in principle, subject to having a look at its actual wording. My own not very fully

considered view is that I would like, at another stage, to use some such words as, "the organised workers of Great Britain or any class of those workers specially concerned."

Mr. Pickthorn: The right hon. Gentleman did mention paragraph (b) of Subsection (2)—"the organised workers of Great Britain"—and I hope he will forgive me if I hark back to that for a minute, as I would like him to hear what I am going to say. Are we to believe that "the organised workers of Great Britain" is some one unity, and cannot be broken up at all? If so, does that, in fact, mean that it must be the T.U.C., and that it is not really conceivable that it should be anyone else, or does it mean that anyone claiming to represent the organised workers, either in general or in particular, can come under (b)?

Mr. Speaker: We have already dealt with organised workers in line 17.

Mr. Pickthorn: I understand that, Sir, but the right hon. Gentleman explained his answer to the present point in terms of what we were to understand about (b), and as I had not fully understood that, I thought it proper to ask what it did mean.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman was out of the Chamber when I dealt with that point on the previous Amendment. He himself raised it, and I answered him fairly fully, I think, in his absence.

Mr. Shepherd: In view of the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Constitution of the Commission.)

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out "Monopoly," and to insert "Restrictive Business Practices."
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this Amendment deals with a point of great difficulty which has probably given him a considerable number of headaches in the past. I think the argument in favour of "Monopoly" is that it is one word which, in its


adjectival form, has become a convenient term of abuse. "Monopolistic" is a term of abuse because it is usually used without any serious regard for its content. There is the advantage of a single word, but then we come to the point, first of all, of derivation, that it still conveys to many people its true sense of a single seller.
An hon. Member opposite in distinguishing between monopoly and restrictive practice showed the difficulty which many people fall into in this respect. They differentiate between monopoly and restrictive practice so strongly that they are surprised to find that the Bill deals with restrictive practices at all. It is perfectly clear that the various Clauses which state the conditions to which the Bill applies include what are really restrictive business practices in addition to something which, I think, faintly approximates to the idea of a monopoly. When the test is one-third of the goods in a substantial part it is rather an affront to the senses to imagine that there are three monopolists functioning at once. It is a contradiction in terms, which causes considerable difficulty. I entirely agree that "restraint of trade" is not suitable, because it has its technical, legal, connotation and does not apply to matters with which we are concerned. Restraint of trade is now very largely limited to service agreements when people are bound not to set up business on their own account, having been in service with somebody else. Historically, it is a pity that restraint of trade has become limited in the development of English law, but we must admit that.
I now come to my proposal about restrictive business practices. I think the word "business" must be included, because the words "restrictive practices" are largely used with reference to to practices of labour which were dealt with in the Economic Survey for 1947. Here, we are dealing with restrictive practices in the business sphere, and not in the sphere of labour. Therefore, the word "business" must be put in to make it clear. I think a good test of this is for the right hon. Gentleman and those Members who have taken part in the discussions on this Bill to consider how often Members in all parts have referred to rings, price fixing arrangements, and

things of that kind, which are essentially restrictive business practices rather than monopolies. It is the obvious desire of Members in all parts of the House that these matters should be well and thoroughly dealt with when the occasion arises. I am very conscious that I have not found a heaven-sent title even in the phrase I suggest, but I ask the House to consider whether it does not fit all the points which we want people to know we are dealing with in this Bill and, more exactly, fit the circumstances which we have in mind?

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Daines: I should like to support the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). He made a very valuable point when he called attention to the economic background which was gone into in Committee. I was trying to reflect when on any occasion we discussed what was a clearly definable monopoly and I can hardly recall one. All the time it was trade associations, price rings and so forth. I have here memoranda which show that the definition even in 1935, of monopolistic practices was where three economic units took up to 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. It is far more realistic to accept the new description that has been put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I see that the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) is bursting to follow me. I hope on this occasion we are going to have unanimity, but I must say, if I am not out of Order, that there are times when impudence is sometimes mistaken for wit on his part.

Mr. Shepherd: I see that I shall have to persevere with the hon. Member for East Ham, North {Mr. Dames). This time he is a little nearer the target than on other occasions when we had these discussions, and I am glad, indeed almost overjoyed, to support the view which he has put forward. It is lamentable that this Bill should leave this place with an inadequate and misleading title, for it is both inadequate and misleading. I have not been convinced even after re-reading the statements made by the President of the Board of Trade on this matter when it was raised in Committee, and I do not take the view that a legal connotation should prevent us from using a term


which conveys to the general public more clearly what the Bill seems to do. We pay lawyers to go through a maze of complications, and the fact that we may confuse some lawyers because we call the Bill the Restrictive Business Practices Bill does not seem a valid reason to me for objecting to this proposal.
What does matter is that the trader in any business will see the purpose of the Bill and accordingly will shape his attitude towards the practices with which the Bill deals. I suggest that the phrase used by my right hon. and learned Friend, while it is not a perfect phrase, is better than the present title. It is almost impossible to find a worse title than the present one, and if the Government insist on excluding from the purview of the Bill all State monopolies then the present title becomes indefensible. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will be more helpful and responsive to what is obvious alarm in all parts of the House, and that he will indicate a form and title which will be more satisfactory than the inadequate and misleading one which we have at the present time.

Mr. E. Fletcher: May I say one word in support of the Amendment. I think the title of "Monopoly Bill" would be very misleading. It would create an unfortunate approach. The title of the Act and the Commission is very important, because I believe that this Commission is going to play a very important part in the future commercial life of this country in stimulating private enterprise, and in eradicating those restrictive practices to which we all are opposed and which we wish to see eliminated. I am not entirely happy about the alternative, but I am anxious to get a title as small in size as possible. If it were possible I prefer "restrictive practices" but there is another alternative. I sometimes think it is unfortunate that we do not take a leaf out of the book of our American friends, who have a lot of anti-trust legislation which they call by the name of the sponsor, like the Clayton Act and so forth. We could call this the Wilson Act, as we believe it will become known in common parlance in the future.

Mr. Wilson: I am very sorry about this. This matter has been plaguing me for some months. On the Second Reading and again at the beginning of the Committee

stage, I put out an appeal to all Members of the Committee to help to choose a better, more accurate and still reasonably sounding title. Right up to the last day of the Committee stage that appeal had gone, perhaps not altogether unheeded, because hon. Gentlemen I am sure cudgelled their brains to get an answer, but without producing a result. At the last stage of the Standing Committee the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) put forward this suggestion of "Restrictive Business Practices" which I see is now on the Order Paper.
I admit again as I have admitted before that the present title of the Bill is not strictly accurate. It is not correct on any understanding of the word "monopoly" as coming from the original Greek, and certainly we are going to cover a lot of things which technically would not be monopolies. The nearest I can get to a strictly accurate definition of the Commission and the Bill would be something like this: "Monopoly - monopolistic - cartellistic—and other price-fixing arrangements (whether voluntary or involuntary) between otherwise sovereign firms—Commission," which obviously is a clumsy title though it is much more accurate than either the present title or the one suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If there is going to be a shorter title it will be found that such a one immediately becomes something less accurate. I admit that the present title is not accurate, but at least it is simple and it sounds pretty good.

Mr. Shepherd: And it is simply misleading.

Mr. Wilson: The Opposition's proposal is also inaccurate and misleading, and has not the virtue of being so good. It is, in fact, a little cumbersome and somewhat ugly. The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) if he speaks on this will, I am sure, point out that the Government in a certain Charter did accept these very words: "Restrictive Business Practices," but it is of course an Americanism. We had to agree to it in the I.T.O. Charter in order to secure rather more substantial concessions in return. In that Charter quite a number of things are expressed in the American rather than in the English language.
It would be a mistake at the present time to borrow an American phrase of this kind and write it into our own statutes, particularly at a time when a good deal of effort has been put forward in simplifying official English. The right hon. Member for Aldershot, when he was at the Board of Trade, issued a very fine document, which I saw at the time, and which I hope is still in circulation, on the subject of simplifying Board of Trade jargon. I hope he feels that some of our recent efforts did give effect to what he was then trying to bring about. We should be going back if we accepted this phrase, "Restrictive Business Practices." If it were 100 per cent. accurate or even more accurate than "Monopoly Bill" I should feel rather more disposed to accept it, even though it is a clumsy and rather hideous phrase. As matters stand, I cannot accept this inaccurate title.

Mr. Daines: Surely my right hon. Friend is also arguing that "monopoly" is inaccurate. Therefore, to add another title that covers a further part of the Bill must lessen the margin of inaccuracy.

Mr. Wilson: Both are inaccurate, but one is better sounding than the other. If I thought that "Restrictive Business Practices" was more accurate I should be prepared to accept it even though it is an ugly sounding phrase. Since it is not accurate it would be wrong for the Government to accept this title. I mentioned in the earlier stages of the Bill that a considerable part of the work of the Commission will relate to monopolies and many of them ought to be investigated and subject to a critical report even though they may not be indulging in restrictive practices.
For instance, the report of the Ever-shed Committee on textile machinery manufacturers criticised the combine not for any restrictive action but for simple inertia, lack of enterprise and inadequate research. That was not restrictive. On the other hand, it was using its monopoly position to be less enterprising and efficient than it would have had to be in competitive conditions or under some different form of organisation. It may be that when a monopoly is brought before the Commission the complaint will not be that it is restricting production or charging excessive prices but that it is failing

to develop as successfully, quickly and efficiently as it ought to be doing.
I do not want to be unreasonable but we cannot accept the title "Restrictive Business Practices Commission." I do not think they would be much understood in the country. It would not be a very satisfactory phrase. I throw open once again my offer. I am not satisfied with the present title of the Bill and if either here or in another place, a suggestion could be made which expressed the problem with which the Bill has to deal, and used reasonably plain English, I should be only too delighted to accept it. I am afraid that this Amendment will not do.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Lyttelton: One view which the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) shares with me is that the present title of the Bill is definitely misleading. "Restrictive business practices" is not a very attractive combination of words, I agree, and it may not be comprehensive and entirely accurate, but it is far less misleading than the word "monopoly." What could be more ludicrous than making an Act of Parliament to deal with monopolies when we may have three or more monopolies in different parts of England in the same commodity? Other hon. Members made it clear early in our deliberations that the title of the Bill was misleading as to its scope. I should like to accept the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman to find -something better than the word "monopoly," not a hybrid or bastard word, and something other than "Restrictive Business Practices." If the Bill goes forward with the name "monopoly" it will be misleading.

Mr. O. Poole: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to accept our Amendment. I would not pursue this matter if it were only concerned with the academic question of the title of the Bill. I have some difficulty in understanding this Bill or any other Bill, and I know there will be difficulty when this Measure goes out to the country. Many of us feel that one of the great advantages of setting up the proposed Commission will lie in the mere fact of its being set up, quite apart from its investigations. It is desirable that people should understand what the Bill is about and what the Commission


will do when it is established. It is, therefore, evident that the title of this Bill has much more significance than in the case of some other Bills. Apart from the fact that the present title of the Bill is definitely and almost deliberately misleading it seems wrong that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept our Amendment, which would make a great improvement. We cannot accept the view that "Restrictive Business Practices" would be as misleading as the present title. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman before the Bill gets to another place will be able to find or to accept an alternative title. Failing either being done, I hope he will be able to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, at the end, to insert:
(7) In the case of an equality of votes on any question at a meeting of the Commission, the chairman shall have a second or casting vote.
When this matter was first considered it was our intention to keep the Commission an extremely small body. In view of what has happened since, and in view of the Amendment which was carried this afternoon, it is likely that the Commission will be larger in membership, with the possible result that there might be a more stubborn difference of opinion among the members of the Commission. In that case, in order to avoid deadlock, we think it desirable to give the chairman a casting vote. That is the purpose of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Belcher: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the quorum necessary at any meeting held for the final settling of a report of the Commission shall not be less than two-thirds of the members of the Commission.
The purpose of the Amendment is to implement one of the undertakings which my right hon. Friend gave in the Standing Committee. He asked the right hon. Gentleman opposite to accept an offer of reconsideration at this point, and to withdraw an Amendment, and promised to put down a form of words at the present stage of the Bill. The Amendment does not mean that

at every meeting of the Commission, at some of which only evidence will be heard, two-thirds of the members must be present. There may be cases where members will undertake special responsibility for special inquiries and it may be desirable to use only a portion of the membership of the Commission to inquire into certain aspects of a particular case. When it comes, however, to the settling of reports, obviously that is a matter for all the members of the Commission. The proviso in the Amendment is intended to make it clear that for the purpose of settling a report of the Commission at least two-thirds of the membership must be present.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(General duties of Commission.)

Amendment made: In page 2, line 27, leave out "any goods," and insert:
goods of any description."—[Mr. Belcher.]

Consequential Amendments made.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 33 to 36, and to insert:
Provided that any reference made under this subsection where the prevalence of the conditions in question is expressly authorised by or under any enactment, other than the enactments relating to patents or trade marks, shall be so framed as to limit the investigation and report to the facts, that is to say, to the question whether conditions to which this Act applies in fact prevail and, if so, in what manner and to what extent, and to the things which are done by the parties concerned as a result or for the purpose of preserving those conditions.
The Amendment is drafted to meet an objection which was raised in Committee that, as Parliament had decided that certain statutory monopolies were in the public interest, it would be wrong to leave to a commission the question whether Parliament had made the right decision. In order to meet that point this Amendment has been drafted to limit an inquiry in the case of a statutory monopoly to a report on the facts. Since this point came up in Committee the state of the nationalised industries has become a matter of graver concern to us all, irrespective of party. The discussions at the Scarborough Conference showed one angle from which these matters had obviously been causing grave thought to the party opposite; and the discussions we


have had in this House, together with the further information we have received, has only increased that anxiety.
I would emphasise that this is not a question of whether one agrees or disagrees with nationalisation. I happen to disagree strongly with nationalisation, for reasons into which it would be quite irrelevant for me to go now. But that fact does not alter my intense desire to see this country put out every effort it can to deal with its present economic difficulties; and I do not think that this country can put out every effort unless every possible step is taken to secure the efficient functioning of coal, transport and electricity. I do not think anyone would disagree with me on that. The question is: will this Bill improve these industries as regards their efficient functioning?
In Committee I suggested—and in so doing I was only re-echoing in a slightly different form what has been said on various occasions by the Lord President and others who have done the pioneer work in considering nationalisation and the circumstances under which nationalised industries must function—that there were three pre-requisites of efficient functioning: first, self-supporting finance; secondly, some form of efficiency audit by which the working of the industry is compared with the working of similar industries abroad, and in this country in other times, whether nationalised or under private enterprise; and thirdly, an effective consumers' check. Now, I believe that some sort of inquiry such as is envisaged in this Amendment would work towards the achievement of those desirable things.
As was said by the President of the Board of Trade in another connection, one criticism that is made of every monopoly—and hon. Members know that it is one to which I have given serious attention—is inertia and readiness to accept conditions which are easy instead of bringing about improvement by dealing with the difficult tasks. I believe that, if there were a process by which nationalised industries, or portions of them, could be referred to some body in order to see whether the conditions I have mentioned were operating, or to ascertain those things in the industry which prevent them operating, then that would assist in producing

greater health and a better condition in the industry.
Let me now meet the point which the Lord President has made on certain occasions, that we on this side of the House use any stick with which to beat the nationalised industries. That really is not the position obtaining in this connection at all. We have here the problem of the state of these industries. Through various provisions in the nationalisation Acts we have lost some of the rights of complaint which existed with regard to those industries under private enterprise; and, of course, we have lost that great weapon and spur to efficiency—the consumers' free choice. Therefore, we feel that if the question of how a certain industry, or part of it, was functioning, were referred to this committee there would be applied to it exactly the same sort of probe and inquiry as will be applied to industries under private enterprise; and there would not be—and this was the gravamen of the objection to this suggested course of action—an overriding of the opinion of this House on the question of "public interest"; that would be ruled out.
As regards the constitutional position, I see no difficulty. The Government responsibility is the collective responsibility of the Cabinet I believe that it could be left to the President of the Board of Trade to institute the inquiry, because the proper way in which it would work out inside Governmental circles would be that the Minister—who is, so to speak, the godfather of the nationalised industry—would, if he objected to the suggested inquiry, take it up with the President of the Board of Trade, and if they could not come to an agreement the matter would be dealt with at Cabinet level—as, indeed, it should be, because it is a most important matter.
7.30 p.m.
I have limited my remarks to the nationalised industries, because I hope that other forms of statutory monopolies, in the various agricultural schemes and the like, will be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. But the same arguments, in a slightly different form, apply to inquiries into these various statutory schemes. The


main point is this. We are all anxious to produce efficiency over the whole field of production. In this Bill, we have joined in trying to improve the efficiency of the machinery which has been designed to deal with a certain restriction of production in private enterprise which may occur. I do not think anyone who has paid attention to this Bill can say that the Opposition has been anything but co-operative in its approach to it.
Therefore, in so far as the system for which we stand and in which we believe is concerned, we put it into the common pool with the machinery of inquiry, so that this efficiency will be maintained. What we are asking, I suggest, is a most reasonable request—that hon. Gentlemen who believe, as we do not believe, in a different system, should nevertheless find some means of inquiry so that efficiency will not only be maintained, but that it will be manifest to the population of this country that it is being maintained. It is in no narrow sense of party advantage that we are moving this Amendment. It is in deep anxiety for the position in which our country is placed, and with a deep desire to use every method to improve it.

Mr. Turton: I would like to reinforce what my right hon. and learned Friend has said on this Amendment. If hon. Members will look at the words which we are trying to remove, they will see that what they are saying in this Clause is that, if the conditions in question—these so-called monopoly conditions—have been created by any statute or other enactment, then the Monopoly Commission shall be prevented from having them referred to it. As I see it, that is really driving a coach-and-four through the whole provisions of this Bill. If we are really anxious to see that the full light of day is thrown on these monopolies, whether they are State, private or public monopolies, we must allow the Government to refer any monopoly to this Commission. I realise that the Government and their supporters, at the present time, are a bit squeamish and sensitive about these nationalised industries. I think they have gained a great deal of good from the bracing air of Scarborough, and that they have become actually more far-sighted about their schemes not having been well worked out.
I want however to avoid saying anything contentious, and to deal with these public monopolies that are not necessarily the creations of the present Socialist Government. Of course, there are a great many. After all, if these words go through, we are not merely removing from reference to the Monopoly Commission the Coal Commission, the Railway Executive or the Electricity Authority; we are removing any large monopoly in this country which has been created by any statute. If we had, as I remember was suggested by a former hon. Member of this House, Mr. Chorley, who has since died, a water grid and a large water authority which monopolised the water system of the country, if this proviso was inserted in the Bill, it would mean that the Board of Trade could never refer that water grid to the Monopoly Commission, although the consumers of the country might be gravely injured by that monopoly.
Let me now come to actual instances. In 1936, an Act of Parliament was passed which dealt with the reorganisation of the sugar industry. Under that Act, there was set up the British Sugar Corporation, under whose control the whole of the buying, selling and processing of sugar was placed. There was no question here of the 33⅓ per cent. monopoly, about which we are talking, but of a complete monopoly for the whole of the sugar trade of this country. If this proviso is left in the Bill, that Sugar Corporation is completely removed, and becomes one of the fortunate few monopolies which this Socialist Government nurse as their cherished children, and can never have the attention of the Monopoly Commission drawn to it. I read, from time to time, reports brought out on the different aspects of the problems of the present day. They usually have on them the names of a certain number of the Government's supporters or those who agree with their views, and, in all these reports, we find that the solution is that there should be a Commission appointed to manage the concern.
Let us take, for instance, the Lucas Committee which reported on marketing, and recommended a monopoly Commission that would be allowed to trade in the product and to manage the product, under the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture. Last week, we had


another of these documents—the report of the Williams Committee dealing with milk. Again, we had a solution that there should be a Milk Commission which was to have a complete monopolistic control over the milk trade of the country and be able to trade in milk. If this proviso goes in, these Commissions will be entirely removed from the gaze of the Monopoly Commission.
This Amendment is designed to secure that these monopolies shall be subject to the scrutiny of the Monopoly Commission, but they will be in a different position, like that of a private monopoly, in that it will be the function of the Commission to report on the facts about them but not to make recommendations thereon. That seems to me to be the correct solution. If the Government say that what Parliament has created can only be altered by another Act of Parliament, I do not see the reason of it. If we make mistakes, it is for us to undo the mistakes, but, at least, we want to be able to know what is happening to our mistakes. You, Mr. Speaker, at present find it embarrassing when we try to investigate the mistakes of the Socialist Government, because it is not easy to question Ministers about the mistakes for which they are responsible. However, to get away from the contentious, there are other mistakes that are frequently made by different Governments in setting up these large Commissions which themselves make mistakes. Unless we have some body like the Monopoly Commission examining them, I think the practice of public life has shown that it will be quite impossible for us to know what is happening.
I remember, many years before the war, we introduced the bacon marketing scheme—a large monopoly which had a centralised control over the whole of the bacon factories of the country, and which prevented any new bacon factory starting. I remember how hard it was to get the facts of the situation brought out into the glare of publicity in order to enable more bacon factories to be set up and the quality of British bacon to be improved. Under this Bill that type of board will be removed from the scrutiny of the Monopoly Commission by the accident of having been created by the

Bacon Industry Act, 1938. Surely that is entirely wrong.
I would ask the Government to consider seriously this problem, to forget for a moment their Scarborough sensitivity and to approach it from a broadminded angle. The mere fact that Parliament has created a monopoly should not prevent the scrutiny of what is happening and the report to Parliament. The Lucas Committee bears me out when I believe that the type of check on the State-created monopoly of a consumers' committee or consumers' advisory council is not effective in protecting the consumer or in bringing the facts of the State monopoly into the full light of day. It was not a satisfactory solution in the Socialist Marketing Act, 1931. I do not make any party capital in saying that it was Lord Addison's Marketing Act, and not one of ours, that created the difficulty. I make my comparison only because when I used the illustration of Marketing Acts at an earlier stage certain hon. Members opposite thought that all agricultural Marketing Acts had been passed by previous Conservative Governments. This particular one, however, was passed by Lord Addison who, I believe, is still a Socialist.
If consumers' committees and advisory councils are not the most effective method of checking these State monopolies, then let us give this Monopoly Commission, or whatever it is to be called, the work to do. By that means we can make this Measure a better one.

Mr. Shepherd: The Government should feel very much indebted to the Opposition for making this compromise possible for them. I do not anticipate that those expectations will be realised because gratitude and humility are not qualities to be found in any abundance on the Government Front Bench. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will not expect us to ignore the fact that it is ironical that at one moment the President should insist upon retaining the word "monopoly" in the title, and then insists upon State monopolies being excluded from the purview of the Bill. I think it was true that the Government had a case before in saying that, public interest having been decided by Parliament in the form of a national corporation,


it would be wrong for a body of this character to set it aside. The Amendment, however, allows the Government to save its face and to get the advantages of an efficiency audit, by a body of independence and experience, to determine whether the nationalised corporation is working efficiently.
7.45 p.m.
The existence of an expert board is of great importance. It is much better to have a Monopoly Commission investigating a national corporation than the suggestion which seems to be floating around Whitehall that we should have a Commission headed, of all people, by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to inquire whether the nationalised corporations are being efficiently conducted. Even if the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster commanded the greatest possible confidence in all sections of the country, it would be more desirable if some permanent body, with continuity of experience, were to judge these matters instead of a Commission set up under a Minister who was a spare body introduced into the Government on the grounds of sympathy or otherwise.
It is important to realise that State monopoly has all the disadvantages of private monopoly. It has a better chance of developing the evils than private monopoly, because in most cases private monopoly has the shadow of competition before it. If it does not do certain things—if it is not efficient, if it does not give a good output and does not sell at reasonable prices—somebody else will come along and sell his goods and put them out of business. But in the case of a State monopoly there is complete protection for inefficiency. I am fortified in pressing this Amendment by the statement of the President only a few moments ago that the complaint against monopolies is not that they are necessarily restrictive, but that they become inefficient. That is the case. It is all the more reason why the President should recognise such difficulties to be inherent in monopolies, that he should agree to the Commission's looking into the facts of a nationalised corporation.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that they have found the truer, nobler and better way of conducting industry; if they really think they have hit upon

something which has escaped the feebler intellects on this side; if they believe that their method of conducting an economy is the best that can be devised, or even if it is only just better than that in which we believe, they should have no hesitation in subjecting their creation to the test of this Commission. They should rejoice, as many so-called private monopolists will rejoice, in having their case put before the Commission. Many so-called private monopolies will be very pleased indeed for the Commission to examine their activities. If hon. Gentlemen or the Government—

Mr. Daines: Was not the hon. Gentleman arguing earlier that any one who had to go to the Commission would become besmirched? How does that compare with his present argument?

Mr. Shepherd: I do not like to be hard on the hon. Gentleman and I am trying to be as charitable as I can, but really he has got it all wrong again. What I said earlier was that a firm would be besmirched if complaints by a third person were made to the Board of Trade and, because they were made by a specialised category of persons, would be published in the annual report. That was my complaint.
I say now that many so-called private monopolies will be anxious for the opportunity of having their cases investigated by this Commission. If the consciences of hon. Members opposite are as clear as those of the conductors of private monopolies, and if they have the same confidence in their form of organisation as those who conduct private monopolies, they ought to rejoice in this Amendment. If we have to go to a Division they ought to come to this side of the House in support of it.

Mr. Sparks: I should like to say a few words in view of what has been said by the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd). It is important that we should have some regard for the motive of private industry and that of nationalised industry. The motive is important because, in the case of private industry, the responsibility is to a body of private persons who happen to be shareholders, whereas with nationalised enterprise the responsibility is a public one and the public interest is supreme.

Mr. Shepherd: Would the hon. Gentleman say what is the difference between getting an expensive and inadequate article from a national corporation at a high price, and getting an inadequate and high-priced article from a private monopoly?

Mr. Sparks: With nationalised enterprises there are checks—

Mr. Lyttelton: We have to sign them all.

Mr. Sparks: —and the light of publicity very often shines on the activity of nationalised enterprises much more than on private enterprises.
It has been admitted by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), in the very admirable book he wrote, that monopolies have a responsibility to a small section of the community, that is to the shareholders. Therefore, in view of the fact that the motive and origin of a private monopoly is to satisfy the interests of a private body of people, it obviously is an organisation which is ripe for this kind of inquiry. The position is totally different with a nationalised enterprise. Hon. Members opposite smile, but I have not heard them criticise the Post Office which has been admitted by them to be the finest business organisation in the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the Post Office can be run efficiently in the interests of the people of the country and without much criticism from Members opposite, it is a testimony for the exclusion of national enterprises from this kind of inquiry.
My right hon. Friend is correct therefore in insisting that nationalised enterprises operating in the interests of the community, should definitely be excluded from the purview of this Bill, but not monopolies responsible to no one but a group of private shareholders whose interests very often conflict with the national interests. It is those sort of monopolies upon which some kind of light should be thrown, and it is for that reason that they should be subject to the closest inquiry by the Commission.

Mr. Spearman: I think that the support of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) for

the Post Office might be somewhat diminished if he went to the United States or to Canada and tried their telephone services which are an extraordinary contrast in efficiency, or if he went as far as Hull and tried the telephone service there, which costs a good deal less and is a great deal more efficient.

Mr. Sparks: The hon. Member is misinformed. I did not talk about the telegraph services but the Post Office.

Mr. Spearman: I thought the hon. Member knew that the Post Office in this country owns and manages the telephone services except in the case of the City of Hull. If he does not know that. I am now telling him it is so.
I strongly support what has been admirably said from this side of the House. It seems to me that the point of this Bill is not only to protect the consumers, but to make clear to the consumer that he is being protected. How can the ordinary person be confident of that if a considerable proportion of the industry of the country, because, unfortunately, it has been nationalised, is immune? I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us the reasons, because I do not think that we ever had any reason shown during the Committee stage why nationalise industries are to be immune. Is he going to say that because there are no profits to be distributed, there will be no pressure or desire on the part of managers to get protection by unsuitable methods? I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that although there will be no profits, there will be losses and pressure to put up wages, and wages take a very large share in profits, and quite rightly so. Therefore, I suggest there will be great inducements for managers of nationalised industries to protect themselves in any way they can at the expense of the consumer in order to hide losses which might otherwise occur.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise the extent to which consumers are being exploited at the present time under the system of Government controls which now exist? I can tell him of cases where the Government controls are acting in such a way as to enable inefficient industrialists—and in any branch of life there are some who are inefficient—to sell goods at prices vastly higher than they ought


to be, and where efficiency is not the real test of the matter. I can tell him of companies that before the war were making little or no profit, which are now making large profits under the present system of Government controls. That is surely the way in which, under nationalisation, if these industries are immune, they may exploit the consumer. I hope that if the Parliamentary Secretary is not going to give way he will give a clear reason why there is to be this immunity.

Mr. Belcher: It had not been my intention to go over all the arguments which were put forward during the Committee stage about this part of the Bill, but the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) has put me in the position of having to do so because he has asked the direct question why we have kept nationalised industries outside the Bill.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) in introducing this Amendment referred to the co-operation which the Government experienced during the course of this Measure, and hoped that in view of that co-operation, which has been acknowledged by my right hon. Friend this afternoon, we would see our way to accept this proposal. The situation is now exactly the same as it was during the Committee stage, and I must ask the House to reject this Amendment. I find the wording of the Amendment somewhat disingenuous. I say that because of the part which begins:
that is to say, to the question whether conditions to which this Act applies in fact prevail and, if so, in what manner and to what extent, and to the things which are done by the parties as a result or for the purpose of preserving those conditions.
Obviously, in the case of the Coal Board there can be no question of those conditions not existing. The Coal Board is obviously a monopoly in the production of coal. There is, of course, a restraint laid on the Coal Board insofar as any other activity from the getting or distribution of coal is concerned. If they entered into the manufacture of coal-getting machinery and made some arrangement with manufacturers of coal-getting machinery, they would be as liable as any other organisation to inquiry by the Commission. It is a fact, which has been reiterated here today, that

Parliament has laid down the conditions under which boards like the Coal Board should operate. It is a fact that organisations like the Coal Board—and this applies with equal force to various agricultural instruments set up under the marketing Acts—are subject to Ministerial direction, and that, although there is some disagreement about the degree to which Ministers can be subjected to questioning in regard to the operation of nationalised industries, Parliament still retains the right to criticise them on the Floor of the House, and maybe in some cases to compel the Minister to direct a particular nationalised industry to do something which Parliament wishes to be done.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Turban: I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary does not want to be inaccurate, but I think he ought to reconsider what he has said. Actually the commissions under the various Marketing Acts and other Acts like the British Sugar Industry Act, 1936, are not subject to direction by a Minister but are independent commissions. I think it is important that it should not go on record that they are subject to direction.

Mr. Belcher: I agree. I did not make it plain—perhaps I should have done—that the question of Ministerial direction is different in the case of a nationalised industry like coal, from the sort of case to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He and the House might like to know that we have been in touch with the Ministry of Agriculture, and I am advised that these various Marketing Acts are at present being scrutinised with a view to seeing whether something needs to be done to safeguard the national interest to an extent greater than it is being safeguarded at present. However, we have these nationalised undertakings which have been set up by Parliament, the conditions of whose operation are laid down by Parliament and which from time to time, as Parliament may feel necessary to urge the Minister, or as the Minister may feel urged, are subject to Ministerial direction. I contend that they are real safeguards.
In addition, there is this further point. To refer, for instance, the operations of the Coal Board under this Amendment to the Commission must involve a tremendous amount of work which would take a good deal of time and would


occupy large numbers of staff as well as members of the Commission, with the result that there would be less staff to examine the private monopolies which in due course will be referred to them. On those grounds, I have the utmost confidence in asking the House to reject the Amendment and to accept the Clause as at present drafted.

Mr. Lyttelton: We have just listened to an agreeable piece of dialectic which, of course, has avoided all the questions involved in the Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary has tried to make out a case as if the Amendment gave the Commission powers over the National Coal Board or over this or that. It does not do anything of the kind. All it does is to give the Commission powers to ascertain the facts. Even the Parliamentary Secretary would agree that if Parliament has to discuss a nationalised industry it would be just as well—although, no doubt, it would be highly inconvenient to him—to discuss the nationalised industry on the basis of a number of ascertained facts.

Mr. Belcher: I do not like interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, because we have frequent Debates on these issues and we always get along together, but I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House, and to tell me in particular, exactly at what point in my speech I said anything about the Commission having any power over the National Coal Board.

Mr. Lyttelton: I understood the Parliamentary Secretary's argument to be this: that since the National Coal Board was responsible to a Minister and to this House, we could not have a commission

which would interfere with that responsibility. This Amendment does nothing of the kind. It is only proposed in order to ascertain the facts. I, like everybody else on this side of the House, appreciate what a very strong rearguard action will be put up by hon. Members opposite to prevent the facts about a nationalised industry being disclosed if that can possibly be done. In this matter they are, no doubt, solidly behind the Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), whose mixture of ingenuousness and inaccuracy is so disconcerting, said that private monopolies were only responsible to a body of shareholders. He did not appear to consider that they were also responsible to a body of consumers and nearly always conducted their business accordingly.

Mr. Sparks: I did not say that.

Mr. Lyttelton: We have sought a compromise, and it gets over all the objections which the Parliamentary Secretary has been raising. It only allows an independent Commission set up under this Bill to inquire into the facts of nationalised industries. It does not in any way interfere with the chain of responsibility, which is frequently denied by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, between the Minister and these various Boards. For that reason I shall ask my hon. Friends to divide the House on this matter.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 75.

Division No. 247.]
AYES.
[8.5 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Bing, G. H. C.
Champion, A. J.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Binns, J.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Alpass, J. H.
Blackburn, A. R.
Cobb, F. A.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Blenkinsop, A.
Cocks, F. S.


Attewell, H. C.
Blyton, W. R.
Collins, V. J.


Austin, H. Lewis
Bottomley, A. G.
Colman, Miss G. M.


Awbery, S. S.
Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Cook, T. F.


Ayles, W. H.
Bowen, R.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Corlett, Dr. J.


Bacon, Miss A.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Cove, W. G.


Baird, J.
Bramall, E. A.
Crawley, A.


Balfour, A.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Daggar, G.


Barstow, P. G.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Daines, P.


Barton, C.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Battley, J. R.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)


Belcher, J. W.
Burden, T. W.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Benson, G.
Burke, W. A.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Berry, H.
Callaghan, James
Deer, G.


Beswick, F.
Carmichael, James
de Freitas, Geoffrey




Diamond, J.
Logan, D. G.
Segal, Dr. S.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Longden, F.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Durbin, E. F. M.
McAdam, W.
Sharp, Granville


Dye, S.
McAllister, G.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
McGhee, H. G.
Shurmer, P.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
McGovern, J.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Simmons, C. J.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Skeffington, A. M.


Ewart, R.
McKinlay, A. S.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Fairhurst, F.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Skinnard, F. W.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McLeavy, F.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Follick, M.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Forman, J. C.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Snow, J. W.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Solley, L. J.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Sorensen, R. W.


Gilzean, A.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Sparks, J. A.


Grenfell, D. R.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Steele, T.


Grey, C. F.
Marquand, H. A.
Stubbs, A. E.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Sylvester, G. O.


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mayhew, C. P.
Symonds, A. L.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Gunter, R. J.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Guy, W. H.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Monslow, W.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Hale, Leslie
Moody, A. S.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Tiffany, S.


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Timmons, J.


Hardy, E. A.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Titterington, M. F.


Harrison, J.
Mort, D. L.
Tolley, L.


Haworth, J.
Moyle, A.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Murray J. D.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Nally, W.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Hicks, G.
Neal, H. (Clay Cross)
Viant, S. P.


Hobson, C. R.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Wadsworth, G.


Holman, P.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Walker, G. H.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Hoy, J.
Oldfield, W. H.
Warbey, W. N.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Oliver, G. H.
Watkins, T. E.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Weitzman, D.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
West, D. G.


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Janner, B.
Pearson, A.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Peart, T. F.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Perrins, W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Jenkins, R. H.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Wigg, George


Johnston, Douglas
Popplewell, E.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Price, M. Philips
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Keenan, W.
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Kendall, W. D.
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Willis, E.


Kenyon, C.
Randall, H. E.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Ranger, J.
Wise, Major F. J.


Kinley, J.
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Woods, G. S.


Kirby, B. V.
Rhodes, H.
Wyatt, W.


Lang, G.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Yates, V. F.


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Robens, A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Leslie, J. R.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)



Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Royle, C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lindgren, G. S.
Sargood, R.
Mr. Collindridge and


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Scollan, T.
Mr. R. Adams.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Haughton, S. G.


Astor, Hon. M.
Digby, S. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Barlow, Sir J.
Drayson, G. B.
Hogg, Hon. Q.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Drewe, C.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)


Bennett, Sir P.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Jeffreys, General Sir G.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Fraser H. C. P. (Stone)
Jennings, R.


Bower, N.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gammans, L. D.
Langford-Holt, J.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Grimston, R. V.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.







Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Raikes, H. V.
Sutcliffe, H.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Ramsay, Maj. S.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Robinson, Roland
Turton, R. H.


Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Ropner, Col. L.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Sanderson, Sir F.
Walker-Smith, D.


Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Savory, Prof. D. L.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Marsden, Capt. A.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Snadden, W. M.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Nutting, Anthony
Spearman, A. C. M.
York, C.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Pete, Brig. C. H. M.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.



Pickthorn, K.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Studholme, H. G.
Major Conant and




Brigadier Mackeson.

The Chairman: I am sorry that I cannot call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd)—in page 2, line 35, leave out from "enactment," to end of Subsection—because lines 33 to 36 now stand part of the Clause.

Amendment made: In line 1, leave out "any goods," and insert "goods of any description."—[Mr. Belcher.]

Consequential Amendments made.

CLAUSE 3.—(Meaning of "conditions to which this Act applies" in relation to supply.)

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Lyttelton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, to leave out "one-third," and to insert "one-half."
I do not want to take the House through all the arguments which have led my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), my hon. Friend the Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) and myself to put this Amendment on the Order Paper. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that it is not a matter of altering from one-third to one-half the total amount of goods manufactured, processed or distributed to qualify as a monopoly, because the Bill already relates to one-third of the production or processing or distribution of goods in a substantial part of the United Kingdom. Incidentally the absurdity of the title of the Bill is shown in that there might be three competing monopolies in Rutlandshire. The object of this Amendment is to make the Bill apply to one-half of the production, processing or distribution in a substantial part of the United Kingdom. The arguments were fully discussed in the Committee so I will not repeat them.

Mr. Belcher: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has not gone over all

the arguments which were produced during the Committee stage. It is perfectly true, as he said, that this matter was very well discussed in Committee. I merely wish to say that the figure we have inserted in this Bill is one which we believe will enable the provisions of the Bill to apply to an industry in which there is a substantial degree of monopoly. I am advised that this provision can be compared with the American practice and that in fact the provisions we make in this Bill about one-third and its application in a substantial area of the United Kingdom are not so difficult at the provisions of the various pieces of American legislation on this matter.

Mr. Lyttelton: I would like to keep this matter straight. The essential difference between the legislation of the United States and ours is that in the United States any form of price fixing such as we propose to include is ipso facto illegal, so the entire basis is different. We should be careful not to draw comparisons.

Mr. Belcher: We are not dealing with price fixing only in this Bill. There is in America what is known as the "rule of reason." This is an attempt to import the rule of reason into our legislation on this matter in this country.
I hope that it will not be necessary to argue this matter at length. I do not wish to repeat the arguments which were used by my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply. The right hon. Gentleman is not without knowledge of the fact that there was pressure from the Government side of the Committee to reduce the figure to something lower than one-third. We have contented ourselves with this figure of one-third. We believe it is a figure which will bring within the provisions of this Bill those industries and sections of industry which ought to come within its purview.

Question put, "That 'one-third' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes 255; Noes 63.

Division No. 248.]
AYES.
[8.20 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Grenfell, D. R.
Moyle, A.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Grey, C. F.
Murray J. D.


Alpass, J. H.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Nally, W.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Naylor, T. E.


Attewell, H. C.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Neal, H. (Clay Cross)


Austin, H. Lewis
Gunter, R. J.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Awbery, S. S.
Guy, W. H.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Arles, W. H.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Hale, Leslie
Oldfield, W. H.


Bacon, Miss A.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Oliver, G. H.


Baird, J.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Balfour, A.
Hardy, E. A.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Barstow, P. G.
Harrison, J.
Pargiter, G. A.


Barton, C.
Haworth, J.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Battley, J. R.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Pearson, A.


Belcher, J. W.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Peart, T. F.


Benson, G.
Hicks, G.
Perrins, W.


Berry, H.
Hobson, C. R.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Beswick, F.
Holman, P.
Popplewell, E.


Bing, G. H. C.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Binns, J.
Hoy, J.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Blackburn, A. R.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Price, M. Philips


Blenkinsop, A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Proctor, W. I.


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pryde, D. J.


Bottomley, A. G.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Randall, H. E.


Bowen, R.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Ranger, J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Janner, B.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Rhodes, H.


Bramall, E. A.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras S.E.)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Jenkins, R. H.
Robens, A.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Royle, C.


Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Sargood, R.


Burden, T. W.
Keenan, W.
Scollan, T.


Burke, W. A.
Kendall, W. D.
Segal, Dr. S.


Callaghan, James
Kenyon, C.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Carmichael, James
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sharp, Granville


Champion, A. J.
Kinley, J.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Kirby, B. V.
Shurmer, P.


Cobb, F. A.
Lang, G.
Simmons, C. J.


Cocks, F. S.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Skeffington, A. M.


Collins, V. J.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Leslie, J. R.
Skinnard, F. W.


Cook, T. F.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Snow, J. W.


Cove, W. G.
Logan, D. G.
Solley, L. J.


Crawley, A.
Longden, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Daggar, G.
McAdam, W.
Sparks, J. A.


Daines, P.
McAllister, G.
Steele, T.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
McEntee, V. La T.
Stubbs, A. E.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
McGhee, H. G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
McGovern, J.
Symonds, A. L.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Deer, G.
McKinlay, A. S.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Diamond, J.
McLeavy, F.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Dumpleton, C. W.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thurtle, Ernest


Durbin, E. F. M.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Tiffany, S.


Dye, S.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Timmons, J.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Titterington, M. F.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Tolley, L.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Marquand, H. A.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Ewart, R.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Viant, S. P.


Fairhurst, F.
Mayhew, C. P.
Wadsworth, G.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Walker, G. H.


Follick, M.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Forman, J. C.
Monslow, W.
Warbey, W. N.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Moody, A. S.
Watkins, T. E.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Weitzman, D.


Gibson, C. W.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Welts, P. L. (Faversham)


Gilzean, A.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mort, D. L.
West, D. G.




Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)
Wyatt, W.


White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Yates, V. F.


Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Wigg, George
Willis, E.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.



Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Wise, Major F. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Woods, G. S.
Mr. Collindridge and




Mr. R. Adams.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Grimston, R. V.
Pickthorn, K.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Baldwin, A. E.
Haughton, S. G.
Raikes, H. V.


Barlow, Sir J.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Robinson, Roland


Bennett, Sir P.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Ropner, Col. L.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Jennings, R.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bower, N.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Snadden, W. M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Turton, R. H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Walker-Smith, D.


Drayson, G. B.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Drewe, C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
While, J. B. (Canterbury)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fraser H. C. P. (Stone)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
York, C.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Nutting, Anthony



Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gammans, L. D.
Pete, Brig. C. H. M.
Mr. Studholme and




Brigadier Mackeson.

Mr. Belcher: I beg to move in page 3, line 9, to leave out "in question," and to insert "of that description."
This is purely a drafting Amendment to correct a misprint.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That covers quite a number of Amendments.

Mr. Belcher: Yes, Sir.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

CLAUSE 6.—(Scope of references to Commission.)

Amendment made:

In page 6, line 22, at end, insert:
Provided that a reference not so framed as to limit the investigation and report to the facts shall not be varied so as to limit the investigation and report to the facts."—[Mr. Belcher.]

CLAUSE 7.—(Duties of Commission on references.)

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Belcher: I beg to move, in page 7, line 12, at the end, to insert:
(3) Where the reference of a matter to the Commission under the preceding provisions of this Act for investigation and report is not so framed as to limit the investigation and report to the facts, and any member of the Commission dissents from any of the conclusions of

the Commission as to the questions covered by the reference, the Commission shall, if that member so desires, include in their report a statement of his dissent and of his reasons for dissenting.
The reports of the Commission which will be set up under this Bill are reports settled at a meeting at which at least two-thirds of the members are present—following on the Amendment which the House has carried tonight—and where a decision has been achieved either unanimously or by a majority vote depending possibly on the exercise of his casting vote by the chairman of the Commission. As the Bill now stands, those members who were in a minority on a particular report would have no right, except with the approval of the majority, to express their minority views in the report. We have no desire that such things shall be hidden from the light of day. In order to bring into the open any controversy which there may be, this provision is designed to give the member, or members, a right to have his, or their minority views printed in the report. I should hope that, as we are all concerned that what is done under this Bill should be done openly so that everyone will be aware of what is going on, the House will not find it necessary to debate this Amendment at length or to reject it.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Procedure and powers of Commission on references.)

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 7, line 17, to leave out from "determine," to the second "the," in line 22.
The Parliamentary Secretary has made out the case for the Amendment which I am about to move in the words which he has just used. He informed the House that it was not the desire of the Government that anything should be done by the Commission in a manner hidden from those who are particularly concerned, or indeed from anyone at all. The object of this and the following Amendment, in line 23, is to ensure that those particularly interested in the matter of inquiry by the Commission will be present. Obviously it is desirable that if the method of carrying on the business of a firm or company, or indeed an individual, is referred to the Commission, that individual or firm or company should be given the opportunity of expressing his or the company's point of view.
As the Bill stands, it is left entirely to the Commission to decide not only its procedure but the extent of representation or attendance which will be granted to those whose business is the subject of investigation. We entirely agree that the method of procedure should be a matter for the Commission. We hope, just as the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague hope, that the Commission will be a high powered one whose membership will command general confidence. Therefore, we are prepared to leave to that Commission the decision as to its own procedure.
However, we feel that it is necessary to ensure in the statute that those who are directly concerned and who are the subject matter of the inquiry should be given a right to be present. In the Second Reading Debate I deprecated—and I still deprecate just as does the President of the Board of Trade—that the person whose business is being inquired into should be in any way treated as a defendant or a person in the dock. Nevertheless, they are in a position of some difficulty and the effect of the inquiry may be detrimental to their commercial and general position. Therefore, we feel that they ought to have this right of being

present either by themselves or by their representatives.
When this matter was discussed in Committee there was general acceptance of the desirability of that point of view. Everyone thought that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done, and that proposition demanded the attendance of the person who was the subject of the inquiry. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply took the practical point that one might have a vast association. I think the example he quoted was the Association of Retail Tobacconists who number rather more than the sands of the sea shore, if I remember properly what was said by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman put the question, which was very reasonable, how, if we had a larger association, it would be represented? Although I suggested that one might have something in the nature of a representation order with which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, are very familiar, that method of approach did not commend itself to the Government. Therefore, we have proposed this Amendment, which clears the way by omitting the last part of the Subsection. The next Amendment, if accepted, would insert the words:
Provided that—
(a) a person cited in the reference"—
that would refer both to a person and a company—
(b) any organisation appearing to the Commission to be representative of substantial numbers of persons engaged in business in an industry concerned in the subject matter of a reference, shall be entitled to be present or represented at some stage in the investigation and to be heard and to cross examine witnesses.
There must be an organisation to represent the people affected or concerned when they run into large numbers, and, if there is such an organisation, it must be given the right to appear. I suggest that this meets the practical difficulty. It is essential if the Commission is to work, that it should command the confidence of industry and of the great organised bodies on both sides of industry who may be affected by its findings. We suggest that some statutory right must be given for the persons or bodies concerned to appear. We consider that we have found words which will meet the difficulty suggested to us.

Mr. Belcher: In so far as the right hon. and learned Gentleman produced these Amendments in order to assure those people affected by Commission hearings of a fair hearing, quite obviously, I am in entire sympathy with him. I do not think any of us could over-emphasise the necessity of such a tribunal going out of its way to get the whole truth of any matter before it. To this extent, I am not so sure that these Amendments, as they stand, are really necessary, particularly since we carried an Amendment this evening specifically designed to allow those who disagree with the findings of the Commission to make their point of view known. The procedure of a body of this type can be either judicial or non-judicial, but, whatever it is, it must be just, and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, must not only be just, but must be patently obvious to everybody that it is just.
I think I can say that there has been general agreement throughout the discussions in this Bill that the Monopoly Commission's procedure should be as informal and non-judicial as possible. This means, that, however the reference to the Commission may have originated, whether out of a complaint to the Board of Trade by an injured person, or, as we hope will more often be the case, out of the knowledge and experience of production departments, we feel that the Commission will be playing the part of a Royal Commission rather than that of a Chancery Judge. In other words, we think that the Commission will go out and look for its own information rather than elicit it in the way in which information is elicited in the courts by the examination and cross-examination of witnesses by interested parties.
The nearest analogy, I think, to this Commission's procedure will probably turn out to be the Departmental Committee Inquiry or Royal Commission, in which the subject-matter is discussed informally with those who have an interest in the investigation on the basis of detailed written statements submitted by them. If we have any of the normal paraphernalia of judicial courts, such as a statutory right to cross-examine witnesses, the rest would have to follow, and, in this matter, there can be no half-way house. All those whose activities were under investigation would have to be informed in detail of

what was said about them by others concerned, and each separate party would have to be given the right to be heard.
I recognise the effort of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in trying to meet the point of the 400,000 retail tobacconists by that organised body, but I feel sure that this procedure would result in the Commission being deprived of information which it would otherwise receive. It would rule out these informal discussions through which alone we feel it is possible to find out the real motives and attitudes in business arrangements, and it would turn the whole atmosphere into one of litigation instead of co-operation in finding out the trouble. I feel that the advantages of this non-judicial procedure are overwhelming, and, therefore, these Amendments as they stand are unacceptable.
I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, of my desire to be co-operative in this matter. I have no desire to be churlish about it and, if it is the case that the real purpose of the Amendments is simply to secure a fair hearing for those whose activities may be condemned by the Commission or prescribed by the authorities, I feel it would be wrong of me to turn them down flat without any promise of further consideration. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will assure me that his purpose is only to secure a fair hearing for those people most directly concerned before the Commission, I am prepared to re-examine the question with a view to seeing if there is anything we can do to meet him in another place.

8.45 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the House will grant me permission to answer the hon. Gentleman's invitation, may I say two things? First, I have always been an advocate, as the hon. Gentleman knows, of a non-legalistic procedure for this Commission. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I note with surprise that hon. Gentlemen opposite say "Hear, hear "to that remark, but, if they care to look at my speech on Second Reading, they will find that I advocated it in that speech. Therefore, with that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech I am in entire agreement, but I do not agree that a non-legalistic procedure can excuse the Commission from hearing, or us from providing


for the hearing, of the person who is the subject-matter of the inquiry. Not to cast another slur on an honourable name, but simply to follow the example that I quoted this afternoon, if someone complained to the Board of Trade that Messrs. Snooks and Son are carrying on a monopoly, I think we are all agreed that Messrs. Snooks and Son ought to be given a chance of being heard.
I think the hon. Gentleman agrees with me. If he does, and on the basis that he will look into the best means of providing for the hypothetical delinquent being heard, then I will willingly withdraw my Amendments. I am quite prepared that he should consider that part, but the minimum which I ask him to reconsider, and on which I could in fairness to everyone withdraw the Amendment, would be that he will try to find some form of words which will ensure that the person whose business is being inquired into will be heard. If he will give me that assurance, I shall be pre pared to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Belcher: I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman that assurance.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: In view of that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 8, line 26, leave out "restrict," and insert "limit."—(Mr. Belcher.)

CLAUSE 10.—(Power of competent authority to make orders.)

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 9, line 4, leave out "either (i)."
This is the precursor of another Amendment to leave out sub-paragraph (ii) of Subsection (1 e). Therefore, if we leave out sub-paragraph (ii), of course we do not need the word "either." These two Amendments to leave out "either" and leave out sub-paragraph (ii) hang together. If I might address the House on that point, the Amendments could be dealt with separately later. This raises a point which has been before the House and before the Committee from the very start of the Bill. Under the Bill, as it is at present, the position might arise that the Board of Trade had referred the matter to the Commission, the reference being

framed so that the Commission considered the facts—that is, whether the conditions laid down in the Bill obtain or not: then, the Commission reported and, when the report had been laid before Parliament, we reached the position where—if the Commission had reported that the monopoly or conditions were not against the public interest—according to the Bill as it now stands, it would be open for us to bring the matter before this House and to get this House to reverse the finding of the Commission.
That is a procedure to which we take great exception and which we deeply regret, because we feel that the gist of the procedure which we are suggesting for dealing with this problem is one of full and impartial inquiry. We have just heard from the hon. Gentleman, the Parliamentary Secretary, the spirit in which he wishes that inquiry to be made and with which, as I intimated to the House, I am in entire agreement. I believe an inquiry carried out in that way, not too severe in its form, not legalistic, but, as the hon. Gentleman said, carried out in the spirit of a Royal Commission or a Select Committee, would produce not only the true facts, but would produce a situation where the Commission could form an accurate view of the public interest, according to the conditions which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has laid down by the Clause which the House accepted this afternoon.
It is suggested that when the Commission have done that and when the Commission have considered these points which the President of the Board of Trade has given to them as the criteria of public interest—when they have done that after patient inquiry—that this House should reverse their decision. No one has a greater respect for the capacity of this House than I have, after spending so many happy years in it, but I know, just as well as any hon. Member, the pressure of business and the pressure of work which rests on all of us at the present time. It is with the greatest difficulty that any of us keep abreast of the legislation which is before the House and we know that we only achieve something approaching efficiency in the subjects in which we are particularly interested and which we take as our own. Beyond that, certainly—I speak


for myself—there is always a field in which my knowledge is much less complete than I would like and, indeed, I am some times worried by that fact. I say that perfectly frankly and I am sure that hon. Members, if they put their hand on their heart, must feel the same about their own state of knowledge.
I want them to imagine that in the busy stage of the Session they are then called upon to reverse the decision of the Monopoly Commission and to apply to a difficult and detailed collection of facts the criteria which are contained in the new Clause which the President moved. These standards are whether the conditions will achieve
the production, treatment and distribution by the most efficient and economical means of goods,
the organisation of industry and trade in such a way that their efficiency is progressively increased,
the fullest use and best distribution of men, materials and industrial capacity,
the development of technical improvements and the expansion of existing markets and the opening up of new markets.
Obviously, in order to come to a decision on these matters with regard to any undertaking or enterprise one would have to have at one's command, and, indeed, at the end of one's fingers, the same detailed knowledge as the Commission had when it came to its decision. I do not think it is practicable to expect that detailed knowledge and extraordinarily severe application of the Members of the House of Commons already so busy with their ordinary work.
There is another aspect, however, which is as important. We want—as I have said, as the hon. Gentleman has said, and as the President has said more than once—this Commission to have a really strong position in the country, and to command the respect of everyone engaged in industry and commerce and also the respect of the people of the country as a whole. If we start by trying to put the Commission in that position, if, after taking these immense pains about the selection of the right men or women for the job, and after giving them full discretion as to their procedure, we immediately say to them, "But on the most important point which we refer to you

we are not content with your decision, and we must be enabled to reverse that by a Vote of the House of Commons," what is the immediate inference? Either that we do not trust the Commission or that we want that Vote of the House of Commons to be decided on political lines.
It would be most unfortunate if either of those things went out to the country. It would be most unfortunate if we detracted from the position of the Commission. We want to deal with the matter by means of inquiry, and we want to invent a British procedure. I believe we have found a British procedure, which is far better than the procedure which the United States have been trying to work over the past half century. I believe we have found a better procedure than I, in my researches, have found other countries using. I say that, when we have come to that position and found such a procedure, to strike at the position of the Commission by giving the impression, that would be given, that we are to reverse the decision of the Commission for political reasons would be really to strike a blow at the excellence—the true excellence—of the machinery which is contained in this Bill
9.0 p.m.
So this is a subject on which I feel very strongly. I am quite aware that the argument can be made that Parliament is the final arbitrament with regard to the national interest. But there are many fields in which Parliament recognises that there must be expert investigation, and in which there must be patient examination of the facts. We recognise that Parliament as a whole cannot deal with that matter. In fact, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you know that in the vast fields of private legislation, Parliament delegates its powers to its own bodies. The examination of the facts in a private Bill is left to a Select Committee. The Second Reading may come before the House, but the actual Clause points which are discussed forensically Parliament does not try to examine. They are left to the Select Committee appointed. Similarly, with regard to other matters, Parliament has deliberately—

Mr. E. Fletcher: Surely, the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not suggest that Parliament denies itself the right to intervene in cases in which a matter of public interest is involved?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman quite followed me. I said that we reserve to ourselves the right to deal with the matter on Second Reading, but we have not for over 100 years endeavoured to consider Committee points in a private Bill. We leave that to our Select Committees. That was the point which I was making, and, after all, private Bills are much nearer our own consideration, because they are dealing with actual legislation.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, for instance, with regard to the Assistance Regulations, we have deliberately put day-to-day work away from us. We pass the regulations, and we deliberately leave the Board to administer them, because it has been thought that they should not be dealt with in the House of Commons, and that they can be dealt with better by an outside body. One could give other examples. As the hon. Gentleman also knows better than most, the whole field of judicial inquiry—the whole field of the Law Courts—is a matter which cannot be raised in Parliament except by a most difficult procedure of moving in both Houses that the judge or judicial officer shall be dismissed. There are certain fields in which Parliament has said, "This is a matter for machinery other than our own." Here, I say, where we have immense detail and an immense mass of information which must be before anyone who makes these decisions, it is quite impracticable for Parliament to take concurrent powers. The only result will be either to diminish the prestige and position of the Commission, or to give the impression that we want to decide these matters on political grounds. I do not believe that we do. I believe that we want these matters to be the subject of proper inquiry, and if that is our desire, then we ought to leave this matter to the Commission.

Mr. Belcher: It is quite obvious that the right hon. and learned Gentleman feels very strongly on this matter. I listened with great interest to his well-reasoned speech. It is also the case that we feel very strongly on the matter, and for quite a different reason. We feel that this is one of the matters in which Parliament must reserve for itself the right to be the final arbitrator, but not in a large number of cases which go before the Monopoly Commission. It is certainly not contemplated

that this will be something undertaken by Parliament at frequent intervals. Quite the contrary. Neither—and I need hardly assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman of this—is it our intention that the issues which come before the Monopoly Commission, and certainly before Parliament, shall be decided on political grounds.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will deal with this point squarely. Does he think for a moment that this or any Government faced with this situation would not put on the Whips? That is what it comes to.

Mr. Belcher: I must say, quite frankly, that I do not know. I should like to think it would be possible to deal with a matter of this kind on non-party grounds, with the Whips off, with Parliament constituting itself into an appeal' court, or a tribunal, rather than acting as a party divided House. If it were possible for it to be done in that way, with the Whips off, that would be highly desirable. We feel that it should remain possible for the House of Commons to declare by Resolution that what is happening is contrary to the public interest.
At an earlier stage of the Bill we defended the claim of Parliament to have that procedure because there was in the Bill no definition of "public interest," and no power to give directions to the Commission about the "public interest." There is no intention to take power to give directions which would reduce the independence of this Commission—and I quite agree that the independence of the Commission should be safeguarded to the utmost possible extent. This evening the House has passed a new Clause which will give to the Commission an idea of what constitutes the "public interest;" but there can be no really close definition; the "public interest" at any particular time cannot be closely defined, and in the last resort—and I make this point very firmly and sincerely—and only in the last resort, the Government ought to have the closest idea of the "public interest "at any time, and the House of Commons Resolution—which will be a quite exceptional procedure—will enable the Government's view of the "public interest," subject to the approval of this House, to prevail over that of the Commission. Before any order could be made


subsequently, the Resolution would have to be laid in draft before both Houses.
Hon. Members will have noticed that there is a later Amendment, standing in the name of my right hon. Friend, designed to assist in that respect: in page 9, line leave out from the beginning to "declaring" in line 12, and to insert:
(ii) not earlier than three months from the date on which, the report was laid before the Commons House of Parliament, a resolution has been passed by that House.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Surely, it is only one House? The hon. Gentleman is not changing it. That Amendment says:
a resolution has been passed by that House"—
the House of Commons.

Mr. Belcher: I have said that we pass the Resolution; the Resolution is passed by the House of Commons, then subsequently, following upon that Resolution, an order is made which must be laid in draft before both Houses. I hope that the procedure we are adopting—to make subsequent Resolutions, thus enabling the House to have a considerable time to think about and discuss the issue—will ease the situation somewhat, but I am afraid that we must firmly maintain our view that in the last resort it is right for Parliament to have the final say on what is the "public interest" at any particular time.

Mr. Harrison: In view of a remark made by my hon. Friend, would he take note of this point? He said there would be a Government Resolution coming before the House. In view of the detailed consideration which will have to be given to this matter, would it not be better to retain the Whips, in order to get a reasonable decision, rather than to leave it to a free vote?

Mr. Belcher: I cannot commit myself at all on that point. I merely said it would be highly desirable on such an occasion for the House of Commons to regard itself as not divided on party lines.

Mr. H. Strauss: I cannot help thinking that this is the main blemish of the Bill if the Government insist on the line indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary. In passing, I would say that, as far as I understand it, I agree with the observation

of the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Harrison). I cannot conceive a Resolution of this kind, if the subsection goes through, not being made a subject on which the Government will take full responsibility and put on the Whips. My feeling is, that if this Subsection is insisted upon, that will be the case. I believe it to be profoundly unwise on two grounds, which I should like the House to consider, and they are the effect on the Commission and the effect on the House of Commons. What the Minister is saying is that, on the most important question that the Commission have considered, after hearing the evidence in the way he described on an earlier Amendment, their view shall be over-ruled by a House that has heard none of the evidence and has had no chance of considering the matter in that way.
The only effect must be to weaken the authority of the Commission, and the main object of the Government, in the best provisions of this Bill, has been to make this Commission a useful body in which confidence can be placed. If their deliberate opinion can be reversed by a Resolution of the House, which has not heard or considered the evidence and has not had the opportunities of discussion which a Bill gives but which a Resolution does not give, it is quite impossible to say that the influence and prestige of the Commission will not be adversely affected. I wonder what the Parliamentary Secretary imagines will be the attitude of the Commission when a matter next comes before them. They will have been reversed by the House of Commons in their view on the previous occasion, and in those circumstances are they expected on the next occasion to give their decision according to their conscience, or according to what they imagine to be the view of the Government? They will be put in an extraordinarily difficult position, and I say therefore that this insistence on the words we propose to omit is bound to injure the prestige of the Commission.
The other point I want the Government to consider is the effect on the House of Commons. I agree fully with the Government that there may be occasions when they may wish, and the House of Commons may agree, to take a different view on the public interest from that which has been taken by the Commission. That is clearly possible. But the Government appear to think that that exceptional


case cannot be provided for if these words are omitted. Of course it can be provided for. It can be provided for by legislation. This idea that the only method by which the Government can ever express their views, especially on an important occasion when they are over-ruling the considered view of a body which has been set up in this way, is by Resolution of this House and not by legislation is surely extremely injurious to this House, its efficiency, its traditions and all the methods of working when this House is acting in the best way possible. After all, if the Government proceed to over-rule the Commission by a Bill, then on the Committee stage full consideration can be given to the matters which the Commission have already decided and which the Government wish to over-rule. That full consideration can be given which entitles, if I may say so, one tribunal to over-rule another. What seems to me to be quite obviously injurious both to the Commission and this House is to suggest that the considered view of the Commission can be over-ruled by the House, which has not heard the evidence, by mere Resolution, and to suggest that the only way the House can express its disagreement is by Resolution, and not by legislation.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. N. Macpherson: There are two cases here which have to be considered and the first is where the Board of Trade does not agree with the findings of the Commission. I should have thought that in that case the first thing to be done would be for the Board of Trade to get in touch with the Commission and say to them, "In this case you have not taken into account such and such wider interests, which involve the public interest." It would then be possible for them to refer the matter back, and the Commission would then reconsider the matter and would be able to give a further report on it.
The second case seems to me rather more dangerous. Clearly, it is not only the Government that could put down a Resolution differing from the Commission. The implication of that must be this: If this paragraph is left in the Bill the Government must give time for any and every Resolution, based upon the findings of the Commission, to be debated in the House. Are they prepared to do that,

because unless they are, I do not believe that this Clause is tenable? In such a Debate very damaging things might be said which, in the nature of the kind of Debates we have here, could not be satisfactorily answered in the time available. So one of the main advantages of this Bill would be lost. Instead of getting a factual report in a calm atmosphere the whole thing would be thrown into the hurly burly of a Debate which might engender great heat. This is a most unsatisfactory paragraph to have in the Bill, and I warmly support its omission.

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope somebody on the Treasury Bench will give us a word or two more. There is a number of general arguments that might be made, but two specific questions have been indicated, to which we have had no answer, and I hope I may be forgiven if I try, shortly, to get them over again. The hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Government said that the purpose of this paragraph was—and I think I got his words properly—"To enable the Government's view of the public interest to prevail." How is that to be reconciled with his indication that it was hoped and desired that this would be a House of Commons matter, not a matter between the Administration and the Opposition, but a general House of Commons matter? That is the first question I have to put. What is the answer to that? Is it really hoped and desired—what seems to me a quite fatuous hope and desire, if it is one—that a matter of this sort could be discussed without the reputation and existence of the Government depending on it? I honestly do not believe that that could be done. If it is hoped, how is that reconciled with the purpose of the paragraph, to enable the Government's view of the public interest to prevail? If that does not happen, why did the hon. Gentleman put up the arguments he did?
The second point I should like to put to the Treasury Bench is one which was indicated in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson). If the answer to my first question is that it is desired that this should be a general House of Commons matter and not Front Bench administration versus an Opposition matter, I assume it must be intended that the initiative under Subsection (2) may come not only from the Board of Trade but from any-where


else. Any Member of the House, having seen a report, might put down a resolution to bring this machinery into effect. Is it so intended or is it not intended? If it is intended, the Government are going to find themselves extremely embarrassed. If it is so intended, at this stage we ought to be making some sort of guess as to what is to be the Sessional or Standing Order or the House's convention in the matter.
Is it to be one of those things for which the Government must find time, or one of those things for which the Government must find time but only after 10 o'clock at night? As it stands, there is the risk that a great deal of Parliamentary time might be wanted for that purpose. Those two questions seem to me to be quite specific. I hope those who listened to the whole discussion will agree that it boils down to those two points; that they will also agree with me that we have not yet had clear and specific explanations upon those two points; and that we ought to have some such guidance before we divide, if divide we must.

Mr. Belcher: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief reply to the points raised. In the first place, I am sorry that the shorthand of the hon. Member the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) is not as good as I thought it was, but I did not say it was hoped and desired that this matter would be left to a free vote

of the House. What I said was that thought it was desirable that such matters as these should be discussed not in a party, political atmosphere but with the House of Commons regarding itself as something in the nature of a judicial tribunal. I hope that clears up that point. I express it as a personal view as to what I thought would be most desirable when we were dealing with one of these resolutions.

As to the second point raised by the hon. Member, I cannot say what is going to happen in the future when this Bill becomes law, and if and when it is necessary for the House of Commons to undertake this special procedure. I do not know whether the Government of the day will bring the Resolution forward or whether it will be brought forward by somebody else. I cannot bind future Governments as to their intentions. The hon. Gentleman asked me what were our intentions in this matter. I am merely saying that I cannot forsee what procedure is going to be undertaken by any particular Government at any time, but the provision is in here to enable the House of Commons in the last resort to be the authority on this matter. I stand by what I said previously, and I hope that the House is going to pass this Clause in no uncertain manner.

Question put, "That 'either (1)' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 63.

Division No. 249.]
AYES.
[9.25 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Alpass, J. H.
Bramall, E. A.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Deer, G.


Attewell, H. C.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Delargy, H. J.


Austin, H. Lewis
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Diamond, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Burden, T. W.
Dumpleton, C. W.


Ayles, W. H.
Burke, W. A.
Dye, S.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Bacon, Miss A.
Callaghan, James
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Baird, J.
Carmichael, James
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)


Balfour, A.
Champion, A. J.
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Barstow, P. G.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Barton, C.
Cobb, F. A.
Ewart, R.


Battley, J. R.
Cocks, F. S.
Fairhurst, F.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Collindridge, F.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)


Belcher, J. W.
Collins, V. J.
Forman, J. C.


Benson, G.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Berry, H.
Cook, T. F.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.


Beswick, F.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Gibson, C. W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Gilzean, A.


Binns, J.
Daggar, G.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Blackburn, A. R.
Daines, P.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Grenfell, D. R.


Bottomley, A. G.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Grey, C. F.




Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Shurmer, P.


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Mainwaring, W. H.
Simmons, C. J.


Gunter, R. J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Skeffington, A. M.


Guy, W. H.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Skinnard, F. W.


Hale, Leslie
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Marquand, H. A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Sorensen, R. W.


Hardy, E. A.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Harrison, J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Sparks, J. A.


Haworth, J.
Monslow, W.
Steele, T.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Moody, A. S.
Sylvester, G. O.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Symonds, A. L.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hobson, C. R.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Holman, P.
Mort, D. L.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Moyle, A.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Hoy, J.
Murray J. D.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Nally, W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Naylor, T. E.
Tiffany, S.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Neal, H. (Clay Cross)
Timmons, J.


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'plon, W.)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Titterington, M. F.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Tolley, L.


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Oldfield, W. H.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Jenkins, R. H.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Johnston, Douglas
Pargiter, G. A.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Viant, S. P.


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Walker, G. H.


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Pearson, A.
Warbey, W. N.


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Peart, T. F.
Watkins, T. E.


Keenan, W.
Perrins, W.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Kendall, W. D.
Plaits-Mills, J. F. F.
West, D. G.


Kenyon, C.
Popplewell, E.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Kinley, J.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Kirby, B. V.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Lang, G.
Proctor, W. T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Pryde, D. J.
Wigg, George


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Randall, H. E.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Lindgren, G. S.
Ranger, J.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Lipson, D. L.
Rankin, J.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Rhodes, H.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Logan, D. G.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Willis, E.


Longden, F.
Robens, A.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


McAdam, W.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Wise, Major F. J.


McAllister, G.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Woods, G. S.


McEntee, V. La T.
Royle, C.
Wyatt, W.


McGhee, H. G.
Sargood, R.
Yates, V. F.


McGovern, J.
Scollan, T.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Segal, Dr. S.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


McKinlay, A. S.
Shackleton, E. A. A.



Maclean, N. (Govan)
Sharp, Granville
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McLeavy, F.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Mr. Snow and




Mr. George Wallace.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Haughton, S. G.
Robinson, Roland


Baldwin, A. E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Ropner, Col. L.


Barlow, Sir J.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Jennings, R.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Bennett, Sir P.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Birch, Nigel
Lambert, Hon. G.
Snadden, W. M.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Bowen, R.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Bower, N.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Turton, R. H.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Walker-Smith, D.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Marples, A. E.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Drayson, G. B.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Drewe, C.
Nutting, Anthony
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
York, C.


Fraser H. C. P. (Stone)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.



Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Pickthorn, K.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Mr. Studholme and


Grimston, R. V.
Raikes, H. V.
Brigadier Mackeson.

Amendment made: In page 9, line 9, leave out "either generally or in any respect."—[Mr. Belcher.]

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Belcher: I beg to move, in page 9, line 11, to leave out from the beginning, to "declaring," in line 12, and to insert:
(ii) not earlier than three months from the date on which the report was laid before the Commons House of Parliament, a resolution has been passed by that House.
This Amendment provides for a statutory interval of three months between the laying of a report and the passing of a House of Commons Resolution about the effect on the public interest. This Amendment, I hope, meets a point which was made by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) in the Standing Committee about giving adequate time for consideration by the House of a report prior to a Resolution being submitted. In view of the fact that the Amendment is designed to meet a point made by the hon. and learned Member during the Committee stage I hope that it will not now meet with opposition.

Amendment agreed to

CLAUSE 11.—(Enforcement of orders of competent authority.)

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 11, line 12, to leave out Subsection (4).
This was a matter which we discussed during the Committee stage of the Bill. It resulted in the closest Division we had upstairs. I hope that hon. Members who took part in that discussion upstairs will forgive me if they hear some of the same arguments which I advanced. The point is of some importance. This Subsection introduces an Amendment of trade union law which as far as my researches go is unique. It is not found in any other statute. I mentioned that fact upstairs and I think that, as Government spokesmen were not in a position to contradict it then, they are not in a position to contradict it tonight. We may assume, therefore, that my researches have been tolerably complete, and that my statement is correct. This Subsection is, in fact, unprecedented.
What it does is to revive, for the purpose of civil actions for tort under this

Bill, the decision of the House of Lords in the Taff Vale case. That case is, as hon. Members know, one of the most famous in the history of trade unions, and I had hitherto supposed that the decision was one of the most unpopular with trade unionists. Nevertheless it is proposed here to revive that decision for the purpose of civil actions under this Bill. I may say that not only is it unprecedented, but the Government cannot argue that it is necessary. They would have remedies against every individual member of the trade union even without this Subsection. This Subsection merely enables them to sue the trade union as such.
If I may remind the House briefly of the facts, the decision of the House of Lords in the Taff Vale case decided that trade unions might be sued in tort. The House, of course, will realise, I am sure, that the definition of "trade union" now in force is that under the Act of 1913, but similar definitions under earlier Acts were in force at all times that it is material for us to consider. The definition of trade union covers trade unions of employers just as trade unions of men, that is trade unions in the more popular sense, and, provided that trade unions of whichever kind fall within the statutory definition, they are trade unions for all purposes. The House of Lords' judgment in the Taff Vale case said they might be sued in tort. If this Subsection which I am suggesting we should omit remains in the Bill, a trade union can again be sued in tort in cases under this Bill.
The decision of the House of Lords in the summer of 1901 came as an undoubted surprise, not only to those who advised trade unions, but to the legal profession generally. In all the period since trade unions received their legal status under the Acts of 1871 and 1876, there had been no case in which the point had been argued in which a trade union had been held to be liable in tort. In the summer of 1901 the litigation brought by the Taff Vale Railway against the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, as the trade union was then known, sought an injunction against the trade union restraining them from watching and besetting a certain station and other relief. Mr. Justice Farwell refused an application on behalf of the trade union to strike their name out of the proceedings.


The trade union thereupon appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal unanimously decided in favour of the appellant trade union that the action would not lie. An appeal went from the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords. The House of Lord, in their famous judgment, restored the judgment of Mr. Justice Farwell, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and decided that a trade union was suable in tort, that is to say suable for civil wrongs.
If I may remind the House of what will be known, I know, to all students of trade unionism and all trade unionists—and I have no doubt that there are some in the House now—that was followed by two events. First, there was the famous Royal Commission of 1906 which got to consider trade union law. The important report, which was signed by Lord Dunedin, Mr. Arthur Cohen, K.C., and Mr. Sidney Webb, as he then was, emphatically recommended that the law laid down by the House of Lords in the Taff Vale case should not be disturbed. Nevertheless, such was the feeling on this subject that the then youthful Labour Party in the House of Commons prevailed over the then Liberal Government of 1906 and, by Section 4 of the Trade Disputes Act of 1906, the judgment of the House of Lords was reversed and thereafter a trade union could not be sued in tort. No great party in the State has hitherto proposed to repeal that Section and to withdraw that immunity of trade unions in tort. Not even in 1926, after the General Strike of that year when many questions of trade union law were considered, was it decided to repeal that Section. In the 1927 statute, which this House repealed some two years ago, Section 4 of the 1906 Act was mentioned in this way:
The provisions of the Trade Dispute Act, 1906.
the statute of 1927 laid down—
shall not … apply to any act done in contemplation or furtherance of a strike or lockout
which was declared illegal by that statute. Even that Amendment of Section 4 of the Act of 1906 was strenuously contested by the party opposite, and the Act in which it was contained has now been repealed. At present a trade union enjoys absolute immunity from an action for tort. This Subsection for the first time suggests that

that immunity in tort should be withdrawn for the purposes of civil actions under this Bill. Let me make my own position, and I think that of my party, absolutely clear. As hon. Members know, I have never held that trade union law at present is in an entirely satisfactory position or that no further Amendment, alteration or reform will be required, but I do hold very strongly—and I believe many hon. Members opposite will share this view—that if trade union law is to be altered it should be altered after the greatest possible consideration and in a Bill devoted to that purpose.
9.45 p.m.
It should not be altered piecemeal by an odd provision in an odd corner of a misnamed Monopoly Bill. At the present moment, if there is to be such piecemeal revision of the law, it will be extremely awkward for trade unions and their advisers. If, as occasionaly happens, some ill-advised person starts an action in tort against a trade union, the legal advisers of the trade union can at once, in interlocutory proceedings, cause the name of the trade union to be struck out of the proceedings. The absolute immunity is of great practical value. If this Subsection is not to be removed, as I propose, then in every book dealing with trade union law and Section 4 of the Act of 1906, that absolute immunity will have to be qualified.
I suggest to the Government in all seriousness that they would be well advised to accept this Amendment and to withdraw this Subsection. They will lose nothing but a certain convenience; their right of action against all persons and corporations against whom they wish to have a right of action will remain. They will lose nothing except the right of action against the trade union itself, but, whether the Government accept my Amendment or whether they remain as obdurate as they were in the Committee upstairs, I hope by moving it at least to achieve this—that this House shall decide the matter with its eyes open. If the House wants to set this precedent, it will do so, but it should not be under any illusion about the meaning of the precedent which it will be setting. This Subsection which I am asking the House to omit would have no meaning whatever except on the basis that the decision of


the House of Lords in the Taff Vale case was a good and wise decision, which, for the purposes of this Bill, they wish to restore. I hope the House will consider whether that is the precedent which they really wish to set.

Mr. Turton: I beg to second the Amendment.
Some hon. Members of the Standing Committee will recollect that not only hon. Members on this side but also hon. Members of the Government side asked the Government to reconsider this Subsection very carefully, because it was setting a very dangerous precedent in trade union law. Ever since 1906, this principle has been enshrined in trade union law—that a trade union is not suable in the courts. I gather the object of the Government in this Subsection is not to hit the trade unions, but the trade associations. If it is necessary to have trade associations suable in the courts, I suggest that this is not the right way of doing it by altering the whole of trade union law and practice, but that they should find another way which would not infringe this great principle, for which the trade union movement has fought for 42 years.

Mr. Belcher: Despite the rather fervent appeals which have just been made, in which I thought undue emphasis was laid on the danger to the trade union movement in so far as workers' organisations are concerned, when, in tact, we are not in this Bill concerned with employees' organisations, but with employers' organisations—

Mr. H. Strauss: That does not prevent the precedent.

Mr. Belcher: —1 am going to suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is incorrect. We are not trying to alter trade union law by the back door. All we are doing in this Subsection is to put the various types of employers' organisations—the trade unions of employers—and the bodies corporate on an equal footing for the purposes of this Bill. The hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) outlined some of the provisions of the Trade Disputes Act, and it is true that Section 4 of that Act provides,

amongst other things, that action against a trade union, whether of workmen or of masters, or against any members or officials of that trade union—if such an action is brought in respect of any tortious act committed by or on behalf of the trade union—shall not be entertained by any court. This Subsection, however, would not necessarily apply to all civil procedures brought against an employers' trade union or the members thereof in respect of alleged contraventions of orders made under Clause 10 of the Bill, since each case, more or less, will differ in nature and some might be held not to be actions in tort.

Mr. Strauss: May I put one point to the hon. Gentleman? What he says may conceivably be right, but for those actions he is now describing this Subsection does not help him at all. The only point of the Subsection is to say that, where the action is in tort, it shall lie, notwithstanding Section 4 of the Trade Disputes Act.

Mr. Belcher: What this Subsection does—and I am confident that hon. Members on this side at any rate will support the point of view I am going to put very briefly indeed—is to make it possible for employers' trades unions, which the Commission is likely to investigate, to be treated in the same way as other organisations or associations. There is no reason whatever why a trade union of employers should be in a possibly more favourable position because of this Subsection than any other association of employers. I hope that will appeal to hon. Members who are interested in employers' associations which are not registered trade unions. It is quite unfair that an employers' association which is a registered trade union, and its members, should be more favoured than any other type of employers' organisation, and that is why we insist on retaining this Subsection.

Mr. Strauss: May I put one further point? Unwittingly, the Parliamentary Secretary has made a false point. Any other employers' association, unless it happens to be a corporate body, will not become suable in tort as a result of this Subsection. There will still be a difference between an un-incorporated association that is not a trade union and an unincorporated association that is a trade union.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 60.

Division No. 250.]
AYES.
[9.54 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Gilzean, A.
Murray J. D.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Nally, W.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Naylor, T. E.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Grenfell, D. R.
Neal, H. (Clay Cross)


Alpass, J. H.
Grey, C. F.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Oldfield, W. H.


Attewell, H. C.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Pargiter, G. A.


Austin, H. Lewis
Gunter, R. J.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Awbery, S. S.
Guy, W. H.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Ayles, W. H.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Pearson, A.


Bacon, Miss A.
Hale, Leslie
Peart, T. F.


Baird, J.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Perrins, W.


Balfour, A.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Barton, C.
Hardy, E. A.
Popplewell, E.


Battley, J. R.
Harrison, J.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Haworth, J.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Belcher, J. W.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Pritt, D. N.


Benson, G.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Proctor, W. T.


Berry, H.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pryde, D. J.


Beswick, F.
Hobson, C. R.
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Bing, G. H. C.
Holman, P.
Randall, H. E.


Binns, J.
Hoy, J.
Ranger, J.


Blackburn, A. R.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Rankin, J.


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Rhodes, H.


Bottomley, A. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robens, A.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Bowen, R.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Royle, C.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Sargood, R.


Bramall, E. A.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Scollan, T.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Jenkins, R. H.
Segal, Dr. S.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Johnston, Douglas
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Sharp, Granville


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Burden, T. W.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Simmons, C. J.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Skeffington, A. M.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Keenan, W.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Callaghan, James
Kendall, W. D.
Skinnard, F. W.


Carmichael, James
Kenyon, C.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Champion, A. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Kinley, J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cobb, F. A.
Lang, G.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cocks, F. S.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Sparks, J. A.


Collindridge, F.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Steele, T.


Collins, V. J.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sylvester, G. O.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Lindgren, G. S.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cook, T. F.
Lipson, D. L.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Logan, D. G.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Longden, F.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Daggar, G.
Lyne, A. W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Daines, P.
McAdam, W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
McAllister, G.
Tiffany, S.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
McEntee, V. La T.
Timmons, J.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
McGhee, H. G.
Titterington, M. F.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McGovern, J.
Tolley, L.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Deer, G.
McKinlay, A. S.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Delargy, H. J.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Diamond, J.
McLeavy, F.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Dumpleton, C. W.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Viant, S. P.


Durbin, E. F. M.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Walker, G. H.


Dye, S.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Warbey, W. N.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Watkins, T. E.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
West, D. G.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Ewart, R.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Fairhurst, F.
Mitchison, G. R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Field, Capt. W. J.
Monslow, W.
Wigg, George


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Moody, A. S.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Forman, J. C.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mort, D. L.
Willis, E.


Gibson, C. W.
Moyle, A.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.




Wise, Major F. J.
Yates, V. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Woods, G. S.
Young, Sir F. (Newton)
Mr. Snow and


Wyatt, W.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Mr. George Wallace.




NOES.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C.
Raikes, H. V.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Robinson, Roland


Barlow, Sir J.
Jennings, R.
Ropner, Col. L.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bennett, Sir P.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Birch, Nigel
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Snadden, W. M.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Bower, N.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Teeling, William


Clarke, Col. R. S.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Turton, R. H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Walker-Smith, D.


Drayson, G. B.
Marples, A. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Drewe, C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Fraser H. C. P. (Stone)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Nutting, Anthony
Willoughby de Eresby. Lord


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
York, C.


Grimston, R. V.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.



Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Pickthorn, K.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Haughton, S. G.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Mr. Studholme and




Major Ramsay.


Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(Investigations as to carrying out of recommendations of Commission or competent authority.)

Amendment made: In page 11, line 37, leave out "restrict," and insert "limit"—[Mr. Belcher.]

CLAUSE 17.—(Interpretation.)

Amendment made: In page 13, line 24, after "goods," insert "of any description."—[Mr. Belcher.]

Consequential Amendments made.

Mr. Belcher: I beg to move, in page 13, line 34, at the end, to insert:
(4) The criteria to be adopted for determining when goods can be treated, for the purpose of a reference to the Commission under this Act, as goods of a separate description shall be such as the Board of Trade may think most suitable in all the circumstances of the particular reference, and references in this Act to descriptions of goods shall be construed accordingly.
This is consequential on a large number of Amendments made during the course of this evening. It is designed to enable the Board of Trade to determine when goods can be treated as goods of a separate description; and to adopt such criteria as they think most suitable in all the circumstances of a particular reference.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Belcher: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
Having reached this stage in the passage of the Bill, I think that we may all be

considering the use to be made in due course of the Monopoly Commission. There has been a tendency in Standing Committee to think about the Commission as a body which deals primarily with complaints from outside, perhaps even with individual grievances. I think that is to some extent a misconception. No doubt, some dubious practices will be unearthed by private communications to the Board of Trade or other Government Departments, about which nothing has been known beforehand. We believe that a good deal of information is already in the hands of Government Departments, and several alternative programmes for the first year's work of the Commission could be drawn up from that prima facie information.
Obviously, of course, I am not in a position to say what the first year's programme of references will or should be; but clearly there are certain principles which we should take into account. References should, I believe, be made to the Commission successively. We do not want to overload this body at the start with all the references to be made during the first year. References should be so chosen, if possible, as to enable different types of restrictive practices to be illustrated; they should, if possible, be in respect of matters which may be of practical effect on our present economic position; and they should be well spread over the field of industry. It is fairly clear that the Commission will have a reasonable year's work with even, say, half-a-dozen references. If the work is to be done


properly it will have to be carried out in very considerable detail, and it is, if anything, understating the case to suggest that in the first year the Commission will have a reasonable year's work with only half-a-dozen references.
The membership of the Commission is not yet settled; but I can assure the House that we have no intention of having a Commission with an indifferent membership, and, therefore, a poor Commission. We expect the membership of the Commission to come, in the main, from the professional classes; but we hope to leaven it with somebody with industrial and practical commercial experience—for instance possibly a banker—but I should not like to say at this moment who would be the exact representatives on the Commission.
Immediately, the Commission's work is likely to derive almost entirely from specific and formal references, but in the long run Clause 2 (2), which enables the Board of Trade to seek informal advice from the Commission, should be increasingly used and of growing importance. At first its usefulness will be limited, because the Commission will not be expert in this field of restrictive practices. That point has been made earlier this evening. Equally, the ability to ask for a general report on a particular practice—the subject of a new Clause which has been accepted by the House this evening—ought to be of great importance after the Commission has been working for, say, four or five years, and has acquired that experience which the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) was so anxious it should have, before being asked to give a general report on a particular practice of this nature.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I hope one is not to infer from that remark that no use will be made of that Subsection within four or five years.

Mr. Belcher: I was using the expression "four or five years" only as an example of what we have in mind. Undoubtedly, a general report on a particular practice secured from the Commission in its earliest days could not have the same value as a report secured from the Commission after it has had time to acquaint itself with restrictive practices generally, and has become more or less expert in the field. I should not like to say it will be four

or five years, but obviously there must be time to enable the Commission to acquire the experience to make its report on such a matter valuable. The Commission's reports ought to be regarded as carrying great significance, at least as much for the general lessons to be gained by industry from them as for their immediate impact on a particular industry.
We assume—as the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) said in the Standing Committee—that industrialists themselves will be glad of impartial light on the intricate problems involved. It is sometimes said that many sections of British industry and trade are too prone to stick to the old methods without even questioning the assumptions upon which those methods were based, often it seems without even making sure that what they are doing is in their best interests, let alone the best interests of the country. I think there will be general agreement that the time is ripe for an impartial and clearheaded examination of some of these assumptions. The right hon. Member for Aldershot said during the Committee stage that businessmen would be glad of that on the intricacies involved.
In the last resort the Commission will become what industry makes it. If businessmen are prepared to co-operate with the Commission in working this Bill when it becomes an Act in a positive spirit and not look upon it as an annoying interference, the Commission's reports may become in the nature of textbooks on many matters of industrial organisation and commercial policy, and may recreate a progressive and forward-looking atmosphere throughout British industry. I am not suggesting that there is not already over a considerable field of British industry that progressive and forward-looking atmosphere, but I feel sure that all will join with me when I say that there is need at this time for the re-creation of a progressive and forward-looking atmosphere throughout the whole of British industry.
If businessmen are not prepared to co-operate in this sense, then the Government must use their powers, for the corollary of a refusal to condemn the restraints of trade without first subjecting them to an impartial examination is action against arrangements which are used to shelter the unenterprising and inefficient, to impede the expansion of British production


and international trade, or otherwise to injure the public interest. I believe that this Bill has the germs of something which can be of immense value to British industry. I believe that that fact has been recognised in all parts of the House. We have made considerable efforts to meet the wishes of Members opposite, and I am grateful for the co-operation which has been shown by Members on both sides. I look forward to the future of this Bill with some degree of confidence.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Lyttelton: We do not propose to divide against the Third Reading of this Bill. The Bill has been criticised in many quarters for being tentative in its approach. The subjects which it attempts to cover are very difficult and intricate, and I think it is wise to approach them cautiously and not plunge at once into the mass of anti-trust legislation in which the United States have become involved. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) has both said and written, and I agree most heartily with him, that this is not the right vehicle for dealing with restrictions in so far as they relate to the labour side of industry.
I think it is necessary to say, and with some sympathy, that these restrictive practices on both sides of industry have grown up during difficult times on the labour side in order to try to mitigate the evils of unemployment and to prevent skilled trades being subjected to what is eloquently called in modern terminology "dilutees" or "trainees." These are the causes which have led to restrictive practices on the labour side of industry. It would be exhilarating if we found some sympathy on the other side for the restrictive practices that have been more or less imposed on employers at certain times in order to protect their enterprises going bankrupt, their workpeople being dispersed and general disaster falling on their industry.
Obviously, this Bill deals only with the business side, but we do expect—and I announce this very clearly—one of two things. We expect either very far-reaching administrative action by voluntary agreement which will reduce or abolish the restrictivist practices on the labour side of industry—

"feather-bedding," as it is called, and so on—or if they do not succeed in getting this administrative action carried out on a voluntary basis, we expect a Bill to outlaw practices which result in the artificial restriction of a man's labour. That is what we expect. I have a suspicion that we shall not get it but, nevertheless, we shall press for it. It would be far better if the restrictions on a man's labour could be abolished by agreement. If they are not, we expect to see legislation parallel to this Bill.
We think that the Bill, it well administered, may be useful, but it has some serious blots. First, the Commission has no powers to inquire into even the facts of practices pursued by a statutory monopoly. No argument of any substance whatever has been produced from the Treasury Bench against this idea. We believe that the Commission should be entrusted to inquire into the practices of statutory monopolies. Second, the Bill had another serious blot which the Government did something to remove, namely, that "the public interest" remained indefinite. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby moved an Amendment which the Government accepted in principle when they confessed that the original draft left the definition of "the public interest" too wide and too vague.
The Bill has been improved in this respect, but there are several other blots. I do not like the Clause which permits the Board of Trade to require the Commission to make reports on the general effect on the public interest of practices of a specified class. Nor do I think it fair that imputations which are levelled against certain sections of industry should have to be put in a report to the Board of Trade when those industries have no opportunity of meeting the accusations perhaps for a long time. That is not my idea of fair play, and I am very disappointed that the Government have given us no assurance on this point.

Mr. Belcher: So far as this Government is concerned and, I imagine, any subsequent Government, I think it would be possible to overcome that difficulty by not disclosing the name of the firm in the report to the Board of Trade. Reference could be made to a particular commodity, and not necessarily to a particular firm.

Mr. Lyttelton: I do not think tint meets the point. If we talk about the rayon industry certain firms immediately come to mind; if we talk about E.L.M.A. other firms immediately come to mind. I do not think it is fair that imputations, which are frequently without foundation, should be allowed to be made without an opportunity being given to inquire, until a long time has passed, into what is taking place.
The worst blot of all is that the Government have taken powers to overrule the Commission's findings. No substantial reasons have been produced to justify this action. The Commission is to be an independent body with power to take evidence on oath, and so forth, and inquire into these very intricate matters. The Government, by a sort of side door, reserve to themselves the power to reverse the Commission's findings relating to the public interest. We say from these benches—and I hope hon. Members will not misunderstand the point of view—that if it should become necessary to say that the public interest is damaged by a certain method, this is not the way to do so. There must be legislation. It is quite wrong that by a side wind this power should be retained by the Government.
Many hon. Members opposite sincerely hoped, or perhaps I should say sincerely held the view, that the nationalisation of an industry would solve all its problems. They may have learnt otherwise now, but they honestly held that view. It is possible for the Commission, after inquiring into certain practices, to say that those practices were not against the public interest and indeed that the monopolistic practices were for the benefit of the public in particular circumstances. Hon. Members opposite might argue, "We do not think that any company should have such a share of the market. We do not think it is right that any company should make a profit by the sale of foodstuffs and for that reason we propose to set aside the findings of the Commission and nationalise the industry as a consequence of our own view of the situation." There is still time for the Government to erase some of the blots on the Bill, and I hope they may even at this late hour re-read some of the suggestions which came from this side of the House, and that they will be able to

accept more of them than they did this afternoon.
As I have said, we do not intend to vote against the Bill, because, in the main, we think it is a sensible approach to an extremely intricate situation. Industrialists have the fortunes of large industries in their responsibility as well as the working conditions and the employment of very large numbers of men and women, who are dependent upon their judgment. They cannot feel, with the facile certainty often displayed by hon. Members opposite on this subject, that this or that practice is exactly a balance as between the public interest and the interests of the people in the industry, not only the shareholders, but, much more important, the workpeople of the particular industry, whose employment has got to be protected in exactly the same way as the interests of the consumers has to be protected.
Those who call for quick answers on these matters seldom know what they are talking about. As a matter of fact, the problem is one of extreme difficulty and a fine line has to be drawn between protecting in a legitimate way the interests of the workers, shareholders and consumers in an industry and the public interest. However carefully these things are drawn, there will always be an element of doubt, and it will reinforce the industrialists to have their actions endorsed or, if hon. Members prefer, condemned by an independent commission. In the majority of cases where action is condemned, alterations will be made in the practices.
The other reason which I, personally, welcome this Bill is because I think it will put to rest once and for all some of the slogans and catchwords which we have heard from time to time, some of which were voiced this afternoon by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), who, I am sorry to say, is not at the moment in his place. These slogans and catchwords, which are without foundation in fact, are sometimes the favourite sport of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I have a rather unpleasant task with which to conclude. The President of the Board of Trade has himself been guilty in this respect, and I am afraid I must refer to it. In the Second Reading Debate, I think in order to draw me, he


said that the price of lamps in this country was the highest of any country in Europe. I was able to show him that it happened to be the lowest in Europe. Then he went on to refer in these terms to something else:
Evidence has been brought to my attention only recently of an ex-R.A.F. pilot who wanted to develop a new technique for making fluorescent lamps, but was frozen out by the withholding of supplies of glass tubing from factories controlled by ring firms. This was the evidence which was brought before me but I have not been able to test its accuracy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April; Vol. 449, c. 2027–8.]
Unfortunately for the President of the Board of Trade the R.A.F. officer concerned, whom I do not know and to whom I did not write, has taken it upon himself to write to me. I think I ought to read his letter to the House. He says this:
The facts are as follows: During the war I was engaged on research work for Bomber Command. My brother was a Flight Lieutenant with the Eighth Air Force. At war end we put all our capital into Barlite Lamps Limited and commenced the production of a range of patented instant-start fluorescent lamps. Immediately prior to the fuel crisis our supplies of glass tubing from G.E.C. Wembley and Webbs Crystal Glass Co. dried up; for six weeks we had no production, no capital reserves and being Americans no useful financial contacts in England.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me a moment? He has mentioned a firm in my constituency and a man whom I know. Will he accept it from me that anything he reads from him is probably without any foundation in truth? I regret to have to say this, but it has been proved so in the town in which he lives.

Mr. Lyttelton: I do not accept for one moment the statements of the hon. Member. I am simply reading the man's letter. Let us suppose that what the hon. Gentleman says is true, that the man is worthy of no credence whatever. Why did the President of the Board of Trade think fit to refer to him in the Debate?

Mr. Belcher: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he can be sure that the ex-R.A.F. officer from whom he has received a letter and the unnamed ex-R.A.F. officer mentioned by my right hon. Friend in his speech are one and the same person?

Mr. Speaker: It is really a question of what is in the Bill. We seem to be getting a little wide of that.

Mr. Lyttelton: This is an instance of the practices which the Government say will be inquired into by the Bill. I will not read all the letter but I will, if I may, read the next paragraph. Referring to the President of the Board of Trade, the writer says:
The interesting part which he suppressed is this—for four months prior to the fuel crisis we wrote, interviewed, pleaded and finally begged the Board of Trade to allow us to import tubing from France. The Board of Trade in numerous communications claimed that no importation could be permitted, yet during this same period the same department of the Board of Trade was granting import licences to Duralite Limited, a company partly owned by the C.W.S.
I only bring in this instance to show the sort of irresponsible statements which are made even by Ministers of the Crown.

Mr. Cobb: rose—

Mr. Lyttelton: I am not going to give way. I want to finish what I am saying. The two instances produced by the Board of Trade were, first, lamps, which they said were the highest price in Europe but happened to be the lowest; secondly, that this ex-R.A.F. officer was stopped by the lamp ring, as the President of the Board of Trade called it, from making fluorescent lamps.

Mr. Cobb: If the right hon. Gentleman will not accept that testimony, will he accept mine that it was very difficult for people not in the lamp ring to get lamp bulbs and other glass of that description from his own corporation who were in competition?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member is on quite another point. I challenge him to disclose his interest.

Mr. Cobb: Certainly, that my firm is in competition with that of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lyttelton: That does not disclose the interest. I challenge the hon. Member to say of which lamp firm he is a member.

Mr. Cobb: I am a director of a valve firm in competition with the right hon. Gentleman's firm.

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member looks very prosperous I must say. I am only too anxious to see my competitors in a prosperous and argumentative condition.
The last point which I was making was that I hope that the findings of the Commission will put a stop to irresponsible tittle-tattle which is put about on these subjects and bring them into a much more judicial atmosphere. I am reinforced in that view because Ministers of the Crown during this Debate have made entirely irresponsible statements in certain instances without any foundation whatever.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Sparks: I want to say a word or two on the passing of this Bill to another place and to express my conviction that the time has arrived when a Bill of this nature should be implemented. It is important that we should realise that there are enterprises which exist at the present time whose activities ought to be inquired into. I think that the bases of these enterprises have been adequately laid down by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) in that admirable book which he wrote on the question of monopolies. He described some of the organisations in regard to which the Commission would function in these words:
The board or boards of directors who control a monopoly are constitutionally responsible to their shareholders, whose control in very large undertakings is very remote. Neither directors nor shareholders are formally responsible to anyone for the social consequences of their actions. The economic power resting in a monopoly may have a very great influence upon the social structure, especially if some measure of rationalisation is being undertaken.
I believe that in cases of this description there is ground for the establishment of a Commission of this character.
I would say, in passing, that there are many monopolies which control vital sources of supplies. For instance, in the realm of food alone, two units control go per cent. of the production of margarine and three large units control 94 per cent. of our condensed milk supply. Three of the largest units control 84 per cent. of our rayon manufactures and three of the largest units in the country control 84 per cent. of cast iron pipes and fittings. In the realm of mechanical engineering, two units control 91 per cent. of the production of sewing, hoot and shoe-making

machinery, three units of enterprise control 72 per cent. of weighing machine production, and three units control 80 per cent. of our telegraph and telephone apparatus production. In the realm of wireless valves and electric lamps, three enterprises control 66 per cent. of our production, and in the case of primary batteries and accumulators, three units control 82 per cent. In the supply of nonferrous metals, one unit controls 97 per cent. of the production of nickel and nickel alloys. So far as chemicals and allied trades are concerned, three units control 84 per cent. of the production of dyes and dyestuffs. Two units control 94 per cent. of the production of matches. One unit controls 98 per cent. of the output of wallpapers.
I could mention quite a number more, but I think sufficient has been said to indicate that there is a wide range of monopoly undertakings in a wide range of commodity production whose activities need some inquiring into by a Commission of this character. As a matter of fact, 118 commodities are produced wholly by one or two firms. The concentration of production into larger units is due, to some extent, to technical progress and development, and to the urge for stability and security. It is important to realise that when this concentration of production into larger units takes place, obviously the free and unrestricted force of private enterprise, for which hon. Gentlemen opposite stand, ceases to exist. I think they are in something of a dilemma, because they say that they stand for free and unrestricted private enterprise, and they dislike this Bill to some extent because it is a negation of their political theories. Free and unrestricted private enterprise is rapidly giving way to the amalgamation and trustification of industry. That tends to eliminate the competitive factor from enterprise. It leads to a monopoly position—

Mr. Speaker: The Third Reading is supposed to deal with what is in the Bill. A general discussion of private enterprise and what it leads to seems to be a little wide on the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Sparks: I will endeavour to keep within the terms of the Bill, Mr. Speaker. I was endeavouring to point out some of the factors concerned in the operation of this Bill. I feel that much of what has


been said by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) was not very magnanimous, because there are cases where inquiry is necessary, not only into the industrial functioning of many of these enterprises, but also into the extent to which they are making use of scientific knowledge and technical processes in developing efficiency, which is an important factor with which the Commission will be concerned.
I think the right hon. Gentleman rather doubted some of the things that I said. He was good enough to make reference to them. I ask him to read in HANSARD what his hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) said. The hon. Member's words confirm what I said. He said that some of the enterprises concerned were financially unable to adopt certain inventions and scientific information which became available from time to time. I would only say, that there is one important invention which was not adopted by three of the late railway companies. It was adopted by the other. It is the automatic train control invention, which considerably improved the efficiency of the enterprise of transport with which it was concerned.
So I hope that this Bill will become law, and that my right hon. Friend will take the maximum advantage of the power which lies within its Clauses and that in the case of monopoly undertakings which are privately-owned in this country, and where there is a case for inquiry into their processes and practices, he will not hesitate to use the powers in the Bill to improve industrial production and enterprise in the best interests of the nation.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. N. Macpherson: This is a late hour, and I hope the hon. Member who has just spoken will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks. This is nearly quite a good Bill. The extraordinary thing to me is the relatively small amount of interest which it excites in the House, considering the immense hue and cry there has been for many years about this subject. I am making no comparison, but it is, nevertheless, an extraordinary thing. I drew attention to one or two of the faults in this Bill when it was discussed at an earlier stage; faults which, I hope, can still be corrected. The first point to which I would draw attention is that the Commission

may be asked to report on practices and on remedies and preventive action, and to make recommendations. In the event of the Commission doing this, the House of Commons may disagree and pass a resolution. In my view, that amounts to an appeal from an acquittal by the Commission because, whatever may have been said about the desire not to have strictly legalistic procedure, the fact remains that, in that section of industry which has been left to private enterprise—that section graciously left to commercial effort—there is still a prejudice against those who, in the words of the Bill—
so conduct their respective affairs as in any way to prevent or restrict competition …
That is an appeal from an acquittal. It is an error, and I hope that it may be possible for the hon. Gentleman to tell us that it may be corected in another place.
The second point is that the Board of Trade may make an order which need not necessarily follow the recommendations of the Commission if the Commission finds that the practices are contrary to the public interest. It need not follow either the recommendations of the Commission, or indeed, so far as I can see, the House of Commons' Resolution. That is an extraordinary thing. The order must be confirmed by an affirmative Resolution of this House, but the Board of Trade need not make any order at all. This is an extraordinary thing to which I would like to draw the attention of the House. Under Clause 12, although the Board of Trade has made no order, it appears that the industries concerned are expected nevertheless to comply with the recommendations of the Commission. What is extraordinary to me is how industry is to know whether the Board of Trade agrees with these recommendations, or whether it does not; whether it intends to allow them to drop because it does not agree with them, or whether it expects industry to comply with the recommendations all the same. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at that point, because it seems to me to be a curious anomaly. I am not certain that the Government have decided what the functions of the Commission are to be. This "see how we get along" theory of legislation, this "government by exhortation" idea, seems to have reached a new low level.
The last point to which I wish to draw attention has already been mentioned by


the Parliamentary Secretary. In Clause 2 (2) there is reference to the fact that the Board of Trade may ask for the advice of the Commission. In actual fact, what the Clause says is that it is to ask for
information and assistance …
It seems to me that this masks what may probably prove to be a great disadvantage. I can conceive—and I hope that the House can see—that this Commission will primarily be a commission of inquiry, but if it is allowed to become a repository of statistics, then I think the Government are really going to create a new Francken-stein monster, which will grow and grow. I hope that the Government will look into that point, because I think that it is a very serious one. If the Commission is to be effective, it must be kept small, and must not be allowed to grow and have an enormous mass of statistics and information at the beck and call of the Board of Trade. By the same token, the Commission should, in my view, consist not only of professional men but should have on it men who have had business experience. One thing which has to be avoided is that it should become representative of sectional interests.
The hon. Gentleman said that business men must be prepared to co-operate. Of course, they must, but that will depend very largely on the Government's attitude because it is the Government which is ultimately behind the Commission. If the Government show a desire to co-operate with business men and place the emphasis on co-operation and not on control, then only shall we get the best results from the Bill. If the emphasis is to be on control, we shall not get the results we all hope will be obtained from this Bill.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I want to make one short observation on the legal machinery which this Bill provides, an observation which I hope will be completely untendentious. On this subject I had hoped to hear the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), and I should have been very much more interested to have heard him than to make these observations myself.
The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) referred to the complexity of the circumstances with which this Commission will have to deal. Everyone

appreciates that, and appreciates it very fully. The interest of this Bill, from my point of view, is that it attempts to deal with that very problem of the complexity with which we are faced. It would be a matter of extreme difficulty, if not an impossibility, to lay down in any Bill a general prohibition, and even if that could be done, it would be clearly undesirable to have the courts of this land trying to administer that particular prohibition in the intricacies and complexities of industry with which this Bill attempts to cope.
Therefore, we have this very interesting organisation which the Bill sets up. It does it, first of all, by laying down the conditions from which the danger may arise. Then it provides for an investigation of those conditions, and it then provides that, after investigating the conditions, if they are in fact undesirable, they shall be prohibited in a particular case. As far as I know, that is a new departure in the legal machinery which this country has. It is a fascinatingly interesting one, because it attempts to reconcile a general principle to particular facts, and by the process of investigation to distinguish between what is desirable and undesirable in a particular case, which is entirely different, of course, from any form of general prohibition. From a legal point of view I am sure that the workings of this machinery and Commission will be watched very closely, and I personally am convinced that it is one which will have very considerable effect upon the development of the legal machinery of this country. I wish it every possible success. I am sure it will be followed with the very greatest interest.

10.50 p.m.

Sir P. Bennett: I should not have spoken again but for the fact that the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) quite unintentionally misquoted me. He referred to my remarks on the Report stage and suggested that I had indicated that the reason development did not take place was due to the shortage of capital. My reference was not that at all. I did not indicate that inventions were not taken up because of the shortage of capital, but because of the fact that it did not pay people to do it—which is a different thing entirely. While I am speaking, I would remind the hon. Member for Acton that the conditions which he has been laying


down as reasons for this Bill—that many industries in this country are in the hands of a few people—may have nothing whatever to do with the purposes that he was suggesting, for, as manufacturing develops, the tendency is for the units to get larger and to be in fewer hands. The reason for that is the development of industry in our time.
The United States, at any rate, has plenty of laws to watch this side of the matter, and in the United States exactly the same conditions prevail as those to which the hon. Member referred—largescale production in a few hands. I might remind him that the motorcar industry in America, of which I know something, is largely in the hands of three big corporations and they are watched most carefully by the Sherman Anti-Trust Laws. There is no collusion; it is a natural development. I ask hon. Members not to be prejudiced. Let this Measure be what it is intended to be, not a witch-hunting, heresy-hunting body, but a body largely endeavouring to get to the truth. Do not let us prejudice it by suggesting a lot of malpractices in this country until they are proved. I do not believe they will be proved to exist.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. E. Fletcher: The House has been good enough to suspend the Rule and the Opposition have intimated that they are not going to oppose the Third Reading. Therefore, I do not think that any apology is needed for my saying a few words, despite the late hour. I regard this Bill as a matter of great importance to the general prosperity of the country and, in view of the speech to which we have just listened and the remarks of the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), I think it is incumbent on me to make a few observations which might not have been appropriate on the Report stage.
I was a little alarmed by the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, at the relatively slow progress he envisaged the Commission would make. I was less surprised at the lack of real enthusiasm which the Opposition have displayed for this Measure. They have paid a great deal of lip service to the objective of restricting monopolistic practices, but it is noteworthy that we have had five or six Divisions today on the Report stage of this Bill. I do not think

it is right to regard this as heresy-hunting or witch-hunting Measure.

Mr. Lyttelton: Have no fear. I think the Commission will get to the cinema industry very quickly.

Mr. Fletcher: That is one industry in which we have been assured of a close personal investigation—which I cordially welcome—by the President of the Board of Trade himself under an entirely different Act. To come back to this Bill, I think it is important to realise what is at stake in this Measure before the House. I regard it as of the greatest moment to the economy of the country. I think that it goes right to the root of the "malaise" which is affecting industrial Britain and which has led to the decline of our competitive position in the world. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last spoke as if everything was well with British industry, but it is not. I do not know whether his attention has been drawn to two articles in today's and yesterday's "Financial Times" under the heading "Neglect of Science," where the position of British industry today is analysed. I will quote two sentences because they are so relevant to the objects of this Bill. This article in the "Financial Times," after describing the relative failure of British industry, particularly as regards the really important industrial developments of the century, says this—
The trouble was that there appeared to be no urgent need for new developments, or at least industry believed that there was no such need. The spirit of enterprise vanished and reappeared in other countries like Germany, America and Switzerland who had to conquer their markets.
Thus, accelerated by a tendency to cartelisation, we slid slowly but surely into our present state which can only be described as one of technological backwardness. We now have to compete seriously with people who have been accustomed to free competition and who have built up their industries accordingly.
I believe the biggest cause of our decline has been the widespread stifling of the urge to greater efficiency The object of this Measure is to assist private enterprise, not to frustrate it—to stimulate it and to remove from it those restrictive practices which have hindered its full development and have thwarted the natural genius of our scientists and inventors in the full contribution which they can and must make to the success of our nation.
I hope, therefore, that this Commission will get to work speedily and on a large scale—not in the spirit of a witch-hunt but in order to investigate the facts, make them public and bring them out into the light of day. I have no intention of pre-judging this question in any political or partisan sense. The right hon. Member for Aldershot has dealt with allegations about certain industries with which he is associated. I am not going to refer again to the electric lamp industry, but I think I may say that the publicity on that subject which marked the second Reading Debate has already produced beneficial results, and as other similar industries are investigated, equally beneficial results will be produced.
I think the House should not let this occasion pass without appreciating the kind of problem we are dealing with. May I give one specific instance the facts of which cannot be challenged because they are taken from a judicial document I was reading the other day. It happens to involve one of the most prominent industries in the country—Imperial Chemical Industries, who cannot be immune from investigation merely because of their size and reputation. This is the kind of thing which needs investigation. The facts that I am now disclosing are recorded in a judgment of the Court of Appeal.
These are the facts. A company known as Magnesium Electron, Ltd., desired to manufacture magnesium in this country instead of importing it from Germany. The company were proposing to extract magnesium from magnesite by an electrical process in which it was necessary to use chlorine. The company had, therefore, to be assured of a supply of chlorine. The only large manufacturers were I.C.I. and they quoted a quite prohibitive price. Fortunately, however, as the report indicates, the company found a Mr. Dennis who made chlorine by an electrolytic process and they proceeded to negotiate appropriate arrangements with him.
One of the by-products of the manufacture of chlorine is caustic soda—and by the sale of caustic soda the cost of the manufacture of chlorine can be considerably reduced. But I.C.I. are vitally interested in caustic soda. They took alarm and according to the report Lord

McGowan himself intervened to stop the proposed arrangements with Mr. Dennis. They told Magnesium Elektron his scheme would not work, because I.C.I. were determined that no new company should, to quote the official report, go into the caustic soda market." I.C.I. therefore agreed to supply all the chlorine required. They quoted the prohibitive price of £10 a ton, but at the same time they entered into a subsidiary arrangement whereby Magnesium Elektron were granted a rebate of £7 10s. 0d. a ton provided they refrained from making chlorine or caustic soda. They received in that way a payment of £57,000 and the question in dispute was whether on that they were liable to pay tax on that amount. They contended that it was not a trading profit, and that they ought not to have to pay tax on it. The Commissioners decided that they were right, and that it was not a profit earned in trading. The matter went to the Court of Appeal, which decided otherwise.
As emerges from this report, the action of a monopolistic concern had the effect of thwarting and frustrating what would probably have been a profitable source of new enterprise and new endeavour in this country. That is the kind of thing that wants investigating on a large scale. It is essential to the healthy, progressive development of British industry that restrictions of this kind on new enterprises should be investigated. I urge the President of the Board of Trade to say, not in any carping or partisan spirit, or to hamper private enterprise, but to assist it and save it from itself and its own worst abuses and excesses, that the powers given to the Board of Trade by this Measure and the powers of the Commission will be used as fully, and as speedily as possible.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. W. Shepherd: The hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) has shifted the attack from the lamps of the Second Reading to the caustic soda of the Third Reading. I thought he was a little peevish in the complaint he made that a number of Divisions had been lost by hon. Members on this side. Had those Divisions been more successful, this Bill would have been improved. I still regret that this Bill is going through with a name which is misleading, and to have had that Amendment accepted would have been to the general benefit. I regret that the


Government have not had the confidence in their own judgment to accept other Amendments which would have materially improved the Bill. The over-riding of the Commission by the House of Commons will not improve the Commission's status, and it would have been a reasonable gesture to have given the Commission independence. The Government also protested when we moved an Amendment to include State monopolies under this Bill. They preferred the narrow, party point of view to what I consider are the wider interests of the nation. This could have been a much better Bill than it is, if some of the Amendments moved from this side had been accepted.
I want to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will define the position in regard to patents under this Bill. In Committee we were unable to get a complete definition of the position because, one must confess, few of us had any real knowledge of patent law. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that the words in the Bill make it clear that no action against a patentee will be taken under this Bill, but that all such action will be taken under the Patents Act, or the new Act that is to be brought in. It is an important matter of principle that a man who is granted a monopoly under a patent should not be attacked in his rights under some other statute. If one is going to limit his activities, one should do so under the statute which grants his patent. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will assure us that that is the case under the wording of this Bill.
This Bill is a useful measure, and the fact that we hope to avoid the legal tangles that apply under the Sherman Laws in the United States is wholly desirable. The way we have chosen is the British way, which will bring results much more easily and satisfactorily than the complicated legal method which has been tried elsewhere. I do hope that it will bring an end to the continuous talk about the evils of monopolies. Whether we like it or whether we do not like it, the fact is that the whole tendency of modern industry is to have units joining in large-scale aggregations. It is no good quoting, as the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) did, a long sequence of industries of which percentages of 10, 20,

30, or whatever it may be, are held in the hands of a few people. That is really of little or no significance. What really matters is whether the actions of those individuals in controlling those industries are in the public interest or against the public interest.
We can have one of three things. We can have unbridled competition, we can have complete control by the State, or we can aim at some midway course in which we forsake unbridled competition. Obviously, unbridled competition has gone by the board in a wide area in industry. We can aim at a state of affairs in which there is a delicate balance, in which we have as much competition as is possible with stability. It is this question of the balance between competition and stability which the Commission will have to decide. That is a very great problem indeed. It is the problem of the twentieth century—how to combine progress and efficiency with stability. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members opposite will do some service to the aims of this Bill by refraining from wild accusations, and that they will realise that the public interest does not necessarily lie in smashing large-scale units.
I believe that this Bill will produce great benefits, if only from the point of view of the publicity that attaches to it. The vast majority of the industries of this country are conducted by men of great responsibility who want to serve a wider social purpose, and they will not be slow to respond to any lead that is given. For those reasons, I am glad to be able to say on Third Reading that we on this side have done something to improve the Bill, and we hope the Bill will prove successful in operation.

11.7 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I should like, first, in the very short time I shall occupy on Third Reading, to deal with the points of agreement that all quarters of the House have found in dealing with this matter. I think that the President will be as surprised as I am that the method of inquiry which we have adopted in this Bill, and which recommended itself independently to both of us—because I had committed the indiscretion of putting my views in black and white before the Bill was brought in—should have gone through these weeks of examination with, I believe, no criticism, as being the best method applicable


in this country. That is a really remarkable thing. The second point of agreement we have reached, of which I should like to remind the House, is in the definition of what is the public interest, and, broadly, in the criteria which have been applied in that regard. I should like again to say that I appreciate the flexibility of mind which the right hon. Gentleman has shown in adopting the suggestion that was made to him on Second Reading.
Now I come to the third point on which we are agreed, and on which I should like the House, in leaving this Bill, to express its opinion—if the right hon. Gentleman agrees with what I have to say. We have left great flexibility in procedure to the Commission. Whether that will be a success depends on the calibre of the persons we get to serve on the Commission. I should like it to go out from the House that we believe that service on this Commission will be a very high public service during the next few years. If we get a response to that feeling, there will be a great chance of this Measure achieving its aim.
There are, of course, two points on which our criticism has been centred. I feel that we have not seen the end of these points, although the method of approach may be different because of the provisions of this Bill. I still regret the provision in the Bill which excludes the examination of statutory monopolies, even in the limited form which I suggested this afternoon. I feel, as I said, that we must find, if we are going to do our duty by efficiency and production during the next few years, a method of examining and testing the efficiency of stautory monopolies. If this method is not right, as the House, contrary to my view has decided, then it only leaves us with the duty of finding another method. We cannot leave these great fields where the check of the consumers' choice has passed without finding a quick and effective method of applying an efficient audit to them. That problem remains, although we have said it does not come within this field.
The other matter, into which I am not going at any length, is that it is regrettable, from the point of view of the Commission and the possible imputations of political prejudice, that we have given the House of Commons the right to override

the Commission. As I said, this point has been discussed, and I want only to express this as being one of the great difficulties as I see it. The hon. and learned Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas) raised another most interesting point which might well have been worthy of discussion. The remedy ad hunc, if I might use the phrase, is a new departure because it is using subsidiary legislation to deal with a specific individual firm, which is a new experiment in the law. Again, I am not at this stage entering into a discussion on the point, but I should like him to know that I appreciate the thought with which he approached that point.
What is our final view as we bid farewell to the Bill? We can congratulate ourselves that we have tried to make a common approach to a subject which we all think important. I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite appreciate that we have tried to make our contribution. There are bound to be points where differences arise, but these have been differences of method which have not, in my view, blurred the essential unity of our aim. The other thing we have made clear is that in all sides of the House we are determined that interferences with production and expansionist economy will be tackled.
As I have said, we have been ready to agree with and join in the first stage. That is our special responsibility, because we have advocated, and shall continue to advocate with unabated enthusiasm, the principles of private enterprise in this House and in the country. Despite that, we are ready that the first contribution should come from private enterprise. We agree that that is a proper way of making a beginning, but we have still the responsibility of dealing with restrictive practices which, according to the White Paper, still remain on the other side of industry. We have the responsibility of dealing with nationalised industry. I hope and trust that these difficulties will be approached with the same resolution and good feeling as we have tried to deal with the difficulties covered by the field of this Bill.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Wilson: I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I would like to say one or two words of benediction, if I may use the phrase,


as the Bill leaves here for another place. It is a Bill which is of very great importance to the industrial life of the country. It is a Bill on whose principles all parties in this House have been agreed. For a long time now all parties have said that it is essential to take power to deal with the possible abuse of monopoly, or the possible abuse of price-fixing arrangements between otherwise sovereign firms. What was difficult, up to a few months ago, was to decide how we were going to deal with this problem. In deciding how to do this we had, of course, the experience of many other countries on which to draw. We had the benefit of a considerable amount of thought which had been given to this problem by Ministers of all parties in the Coalition Government during the war—the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) played not a small part in that in the concluding months of the war—and the Measure which we brought before the House for a Second Reading just after Easter was based on our conception of the best way of handling this problem.
It is a procedure which in many cases is new, as the hon. and learned Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas) said. First of all, we had to define the conditions of what, for want of a better phrase so far, we have roughly described as "monopoly," though "monopoly" does not fit the conditions very well, in which the Board of Trade might refer the problem to the Commission for a report. We all recognise that the existence of these conditions, under which one-third of the supply is supplied by one firm or group of firms acting together, does not necessarily involve harm to the consumers, to other producers, or to economic society in general. But it does hold the power to do harm. Therefore, the first thing is to have this inquiry, to "proceed by the method of inquiry," as the right hon. Gentleman said. It is then for the Commission to recommend whether, in fact, the public interest is prejudiced by the particular problem referred to it.
But we have gone one stage further, and in this we have departed from all the practice and recommendation of the last 20 or 30 years. We have provided powers in the Bill to deal with the harm that may have resulted from the conditions

which the Commission find to exist. We have not provided power to "bust" a trust or "bust" a monopoly, as is done, for instance, in Transatlantic legislation. As the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) said, units in many industries are getting larger and larger, because this is necessary for technical purposes. They may be efficient. It may be true that in many industries the existence of a large number of small units would be highly inefficient on technical grounds. Therefore we should not seek to "bust" a trust merely because it is large, merely because it is responsible for one-third, or even for 100 per cent., of the production of certain goods in this country. But we do recognise that a monopoly of that kind has the power to do harm, and therefore we must have the power to have an inquiry and to deal with any evils which an inquiry may show to exist.
It has been in the minds of hon. Members in all parts of the House that whereas that is true of a monopoly—a technical organisation which has the advantages to which there has been reference—it is perhaps more doubtful whether some of the price-fixing organisations may not have all the evils associated with a monopoly, and perhaps none, or very few, of the good qualities which may be associated with a monopoly. That is why I think the House has, in all its discussions, attached more weight to the powers to deal with price-fixing associations than to the powers to deal with monopolies proper. That is the procedure laid down in the Bill.
It is, as the hon. and learned Member for Llandaff and Barry said, a new procedure. It is one which we shall all watch with great interest, not only because of what it may achieve in respect of these monopolies, but because it is another new technique in our political and economic life, and indeed, almost in our judicial life. The Bill which was introduced, based on these principles, a few weeks ago was, I think, on the whole well received by hon. Members in all parts of the House. It was on similar lines to those recommended by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
I want to thank hon. Members in all parts of the House for the constructive way they treated this Bill on the Committee stage, and, indeed, on the Report stage as well. My hon. Friends who have


seen it through the more difficult parts of the Committee stage, particularly the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Tiffany), the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines), have had their hearts in this Bill from the very first, and have striven to improve it and to get the best out of it. But equally I would wish to thank the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) and the right hon. Member for Aldershot, and their colleagues, for the helpful way in which they have seen this Bill through. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has his heart in this Bill. Although we have strong differences upon the points on which we have voted tonight, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has at every stage tried to make the Measure as effective as possible.
I think the result of the Committee stage and the Report stage is that we have improved the Bill considerably as compared with its state on Second Reading. It certainly would not have been improved if we had accepted all the Opposition Amendments, whether on the Committee stage or the Report stage; but certainly many of the Amendments moved by hon. Members on either side of the House, or of the Committee, have had the effect of greatly improving the Bill. I am particularly glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman persuaded us to take courage and attempt to define the public interest, as we have done.
I am not pretending that the Bill now is perfect. It is in many respects experimental, and we must see how it goes. We shall watch it with great interest. One of the respects in which it is least perfect—and this is something on which we are all agreed—is the name of the Commission and the name of the Bill. I have been giving further thought to this. My appeals for assistance in this matter have not produced the results which I had hoped they would. Tonight I left the competition open. I was hoping that some benevolent person would perhaps offer a small prize to anyone who could find the answer; but until that answer is found I feel that the best suggestion I have so far come across is one of which I myself thought tonight. With all diffidence, and conscious of its shortcomings, I put it forward. I think it is better than the existing, title, and that it

is better than the one put forward from the opposite side of the House. I think it would certainly be more accurate and that it is not very clumsy. I would propose that, in another place, it may be seen fit to christen it the "Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission." After all, that is what it is; its object is to deal with monopolies and restrictive practices. "Monopolies" by itself is too short, but also "restrictive practices" is a phrase which, alone, is too short. It may probably come to be known as the "M. and R.P.C." or, perhaps more probably, just the "Monopolies Commission." That is the title which might commend itself to the people who will have to work it after the Bill leaves us tonight.
Whatever the name of the Commission, I shall try to nominate the very best people to serve on it. I most fully agree with the sentiment expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he said that those who were asked to serve on it should consider it as one of the most important and highest forms of public service. I appreciate what he said. I have no doubt that, when it is appointed, we shall watch its proceedings; we shall see how it goes, and I think that it will be found to be of inestimable value in the work which it will have to do. It will not, as has been suggested, be starved of work; there is plenty that we can find for it to do during the first year. I do not think that this Commission, as the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) claimed, will spend its time witch hunting or heresy hunting. It has a real job of work to do in inquiring into what has held back the progress which this country wants. It may well be that it will discover one or two "rackets." I am not necessarily thinking of the black market, but of cases of excessive prices, and other things.
Whatever it discovers, I think there is one thing on which we are all agreed, and that is the danger to our economic life, not from any racketeering or from any search for excessive profits, but from the inertia and "feather-bedding" which some firms may possibly be guilty of under the protection of price-fixing arrangements. Whether the nation could have afforded this in days gone by is a matter of controversy, but whether the nation can afford it today is no matter


of argument at all. We cannot afford this sort of thing on one side of industry or another. The measures we have taken in this Bill will be applied very much towards weeding out lack of enterprise connected with monopolistic conditions and restrictive practices, because that is something demanding attention.
The House has been so eminently fair in its consideration of the Bill that I expect an unopposed Third Reading tonight. We shall watch the progress of the Bill in another place and its working when it passes to industry, and I feel confident that it will prove to be a Measure that is well worth while.

Orders of the Day — PIERS, ISLE OF ARRAN

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Collindridge.]

11.29 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: I desire to draw the attention of the House to the serious harm being done to the village of Lamlash in the Isle of Arran by the continued closing of the pier. I can speak with some knowledge of the subject because I know the island and its people very well indeed. The matter on which I wish to speak tonight is of importance and interest, not merely to those who are traders, but to the thousands of visitors who flock every year to this island on holiday. As an example of the number affected, the normal population of the village of Lamlash is 1000, but in the Summer months it rises to 7,000, and that ratio of increase applies to each one of the holiday resorts on the island. The access to the village of Lamlash is by means of a pier. That pier was closed over a year ago, in the beginning of last March, without any notice whatsoever to the people affected. The result is that the only approach to the village now is by means of the road from Brodick, four miles long, rather narrow, and sometimes not in very good condition. The effect of that is that the trader who has to bring his goods from Brodick is thereby penalised by the cost, and in addition the holiday maker who has to travel from

Brodick to the other parts of the island, to Lamlash, to Whiting Bay, and so on, has to pay the extra fare for the motor journey, and in addition has difficulty in getting his luggage moved to his holiday destination. These things are causing inconveniences and increased costs.
Now the fear is spreading to Whiting Bay that the fate which has befallen Lamlash is to fall on them. If that should happen then the whole economy of the south end of the island of Arran will be flung into a state of serious disrepair. It should be tinted that the Arran Trustees stand to secure financial advantage out of closing the piers. If the Duke of Montrose attains what appears to be his object and gets Whiting Bay closed as Lochranza and Lamlash have been closed, then there is only one pier left requiring upkeep. The quantity of goods coming into the island will not be seriously impaired nor will the rates be affected, but his costs will be greatly reduced and, therefore, the profit to the Duke will correspondingly increase. But to the native, who lives on the island and to the holiday maker, who comes for a period during the year, there will be increased costs of transport, with increased manpower required, loss of rates to the local authority, and congested roads. As far as the Duke is concerned there will be gain; as far as the public is concerned there will be nothing but loss and inconvenience.
For nearly 18 months attempts have been made to save the pier from going out of use altogether, and a very strange situation has arisen, a situation difficult to conceive as existing among Scotsmen, because when one Scotsman offers another money he very seldom refuses it. He grabs it right away. But we have this existing state of affairs. To keep the pier open, the people subscribed enough money to buy the pier and said to the Duke "You cannot keep the pier open. It is our livelihood and lifeline with the outside world. We will buy it from you and keep it in order." "Oh, no," says the Duke, "I cannot sell it." "All right," they said, "we will take a long lease. We have the money here for the purpose." He said: "I will not lease this pier, it is so valuable." But he will not keep it in order. Then the people said "If you are hard up"—for even Dukes are sometimes hard up today—"if


you need money we will lend you money so that you can use our money to put your pier in order." But the Duke would not even take the loan either.
That is a strange situation, when one Scotsman offers another Scotsman money. They were prepared to let him have the money interest free. But perhaps the Duke does not believe in a system of interest-free money. There is another possibility. He may have hoped that in the near future he might knock a bigger sum out of the Government than out of the people of Lamlash, for he was continually saying to them "There is a great Bill going through the House of Commons just now called the Transport Bill and I could not think of disposing of this pier until this Bill gets through the House of Commons."
Now, the Bill was passed some time ago and the Duke still will not dispose of the pier. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary tonight will be able to tell us why the Duke is hanging on to this pier which is of no use to him at all. I suggest that not only is he doing something that is wrong as far as the people of this little village are concerned—he is violating the Isle of Arran Piers Confirmation Order Act of 1938. And that I take it is a most serious offence for the Preamble to that Act says that
the piers together serve the needs of the whole community of the inhabitants of the Isle of Arran and it is expedient and would be in the public interest that, to the extent and purposes of this Order providing, the piers should be administered and carried on by the trustees as one undertaking.
The Duke is not doing that because he has already put two piers out of commission, and there may be a third, and therefore these four piers are not being carried on as one undertaking and in law he is obliged to do that. It becomes a very serious question when a Duke breaks the law, and I hope that if there is a penalty to be suffered then there will be no difference between the Duke's son and the cook's son in administering the due penalties of law. I suggest that the law is not being observed and I say that there are certain steps that might be taken. First, there is the question of requisitioning the pier. Secondly, there is the question of holding an inqury into the whole circumstances surrounding this business. Here is a community whose life-line is being interfered with. It merely wants to live.

It is turning to the Government to ask them for help in order that it may live, and I hope the answer given tonight will be an answer that will bring comfort to the people of this island.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am sure I should be the last person in this House to say any thing disrespectful about the Duke and I hope that the Government will not take seriously the suggestion that he should be prosecuted and imprisoned for his action in this case. I do suggest that the villagers of Lamlash are entitled to have their pier repaired and the Government should do something in order to get this done as expeditiously as possible.
According to an answer given to me by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty last Thursday, the Admiralty settled with the Arran Estates, which is another name for the Duke, on 31st May, 1946, so surely by this time something should have been done to get this pier repaired. The villagers of Lamlash can hardly fail to notice that a still larger sum of money has been spent on piers and harbours in other parts of the world, notably at Singapore, where since the war we have spent over £860,000. There has been a marked lack of any go-ahead spirit over this very necessary repair, and I suggest that it should be somebody's responsibility.
Our trouble has been to fix responsibility. I spent a very long time trying to find out who exactly would get something done in this respect. I asked about the Secretary of State for Scotland, but he was apparently not responsible—or irresponsible—in this matter. I saw the Admiralty with a little bit more success, but now I look more hopefully to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, as I understand he has had some experience of Lamlash and is anxious to help in this way.
The shops, hotels, boarding houses and the people who have houses to let have all been very badly hit by the closing of this pier, and those of us who go to Arran would welcome the boats going to Lamlash in order to bring visitors to help the economic life of this village. I therefore appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to try to get a move on in order to help to bring pressure on the Arran Estates


either to get this pier restored or to have it taken over in order that the island of Arran will once again have the opportunity of seeing steamers visiting Lamlash regularly and in order to help people like myself who have a very warm feeling for the island of Arran and especially the little village of Lamlash.

11.44 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Callaghan): My hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) have, I think, performed a public duty in bringing this matter to the notice of the House. It may be asked of what consequence is the life of this small community on an island that is a long way away. I contend that there is an important issue at stake here and one which is worthy of the attention of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston broadly outlined the position, and I do not think the House will disagree with what he said. He outlined the position quite fairly—that in Lamlash village or town—I do not know what the Scottish description is—the very centre of those people's lives is the pier. It is the main means of communication with the mainland, and it is almost true to say that physically the island is concentrated round the pier. Those of us who have personal knowledge of Lamlash—some of us at His Majesty's expense—and other ports round there know well that there are occasions when you may use one pier and not another because of the weather conditions. It is certainly important, in my judgment, that the facilities for getting to the island should not be limited to one pier, because that might mean in certain circumstances that the island would be cut off. The number of piers that are in existence should be used.
The hon. Member for Tradeston said that if the Duke gets Whiting Bay pier closed, he will increase his profit. The hon. Member's point may be accurate, but there is no suggestion that the Duke would close Whiting Bay pier. Indeed, the contrary is the case. I have an assurance from the Arran Estate Trustees, in a letter to the Minister dated 8th April, 1947, referring to Lamlash pier, that the closure was in the nature of an emergency

measure, entirely caused through the condition of the pier, and was in no way a decision to discontinue the use of Lamlash pier permanently. I think it important that that assurance should go on record.

Mr. Rankin: I have in my hand a letter dated last week from a well-known resident at Whiting Bay, a friend of mine, who gives expression to the rumour I spoke of, and it is well perhaps that it should be discredited now. There is the fear, as I have said, that Whiting Bay might be closed.

Mr. Callaghan: The assurances given by the Arran Trustees law agents on 8th April has been repeated in similar terms since, and there is no reason to suppose that there has been any departure from that policy. The Arran Estate Trustees have said that this closure is a temporary measure. I take them at their word, and that it is their intention to reopen this pier at the earliest moment. My hon. Friend said the enterprising local residents were prepared to make certain arrangements in order to reopen the pier, and gave some account of them, but he did not finish them off. Not only did they offer to buy the pier—which was rejected—and to loan the money interest free—which was also rejected—but they went on to say that if the Arran Estate found the piers were taken over by the British Transport Commission, and the compensation they got from the Commission was not sufficient to equate the loss, they would regard the balance of the debt as liquidated. That I put in to finish off the story of the financial arrangements, because it does reflect great credit on the people of Lamlash that they should have been prepared to go to this extent. I regret very much that one of these offers was not taken up.
My hon. Friend suggested that the Minister might requisition the pier or hold an inquiry. I fear that my right hon. Friend has no powers to hold a formal inquiry to try and get a settlement of this matter. Last September one of my right hon. Friend's officers paid a visit to Lamlash, where he held conversations with the local residents and the Arran Estate. At that meeting it was reaffirmed that the Lamlash pier is an essential facility, and also that the Arran Estate trustees are prepared to contemplate carrying out repairs to the pier with a view to rendering it safe for


the Summer steamer traffic between May and September. The estate also undertook to obtain an estimate from their contractors of the cost involved, and, when the estimate was received, that they would lay their proposals before the Commission for any comment the Commission might wish to make. There the matter rests. It was in April, when the Minister inquired what was the present position, that we received a reply from the estate's law agents that the present position is that the trustees did receive an estimate for the repair of the pier, which was of such a figure that the trustees could not contemplate the expenditure without some assurance from the British Transport Commission.
There seems to have been some impression about that one of the early actions of the British Transport Commission would be to take over these four piers in the island of Arran off the West Coast of Scotland. That was never the intention, obviously, of the British Transport Commission. The way in which it has been used as a stalking horse in this matter leads me to the conclusion that there was a desire to procrastinate, and that they here found a very convenient way of doing it. I ought to say, to make the position clear, that the British Transport Commission, through the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive, informed the Duke of Montrose personally on 25th May, and confirmed in writing on 23rd June last, that it does not desire to acquire the piers. The Commission went on to say that in these circumstances the Duke of Hamilton's trustees should go ahead with their own plans for the piers in the exercise of their statutory powers. I repeat that hope. I certainly hope that that will be the case.
This is a pier which is obviously needed by the residents of Lamlash to protect their own livelihood and to develop their own community. I considered how far I was entitled to comment on the attitude of the trustees of the Arran Estate, whose responsibility this is. The life of this community is a matter of public interest, and I had little difficulty in reaching the conclusion that it was proper to comment in the way I have done. As I have said, it seems to me quite clear that, although the assurances have been given that this pier will be re-opened, and will be for the use of the people of Lamlash, there

has been procrastination. There is a marked contrast between the declarations of the Arran Trustees and their subsequent performance, and also a remarkable difference between the lassitude of the trustees and the enterprise of the local residents, who are vitally affected in this matter. I think it is difficult, on study of the papers, to reach any other conclusion than that in the last 12 months the trustees have not only failed to exert themselves in the interests of these island people, but have stood in the way of those who wanted to help themselves; and I think that that is very regrettable.
In these circumstances I agree with my hon. Friend that we ought to explore what action is open to the Minister to protect and secure the interests of these island residents, and I propose to examine the provisions of the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, Amendment Act, which does give to the Lords of the Admiralty, whose functions have now passed to the Ministry of Transport, in certain circumstances power to undertake certain works and to recover the cost from the trustees. There is also, of course, the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937, under which the county council has powers to acquire the piers, either by agreement or through compulsory purchase, subject to an order. That consideration, I think, is worthy of exploration both locally and centrally. I propose to pursue this matter and to see if we cannot get some suggestion in the interests of the local residents of Lamlash.
It is quite clear that the trustees have incurred considerable expense in recent years in connection with putting right the pier at Brodick Bay. It may be that the expense they have undertaken there has left them out of pocket, as far as the repairs at Lamlash are concerned. I do not know how far they would want to use that argument. It has not been used so far, but if it is put forward it can be examined. Meantime, so far as I know there is no reason why the trustees should not carry out their declared intention to repair the pier and do their duty under the Arran Piers Order to provide for this community facilities which have been enjoyed for many years and which the people have a right to expect from those who originally undertook the task.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: Would the Minister make it perfectly clear to the House that the Transport Commission will do all they can to get the Ministry of Supply to give a permit for the materials required? I understand the materials are not forthcoming, because they cannot be got.

Mr. Callaghan: On 15th May, 1946, the trustees were told by the Minister that no building licence or permit was required for the repair of the pier.

Sir C. MacAndrew: Not to build but to get the materials.

Mr. Rankin: I should like to put one point to my hon. Friend before he finishes. Can he say whether or not there has been

any outcome of the meeting which I understand was held last month between the Arran Estate Trustees and the chairman and vice-chairman of the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive of the Transport Commission?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir; that was the meeting to which I referred, from which an answer was sent in writing, at the request of the Duke, informing him that the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive, on behalf of the Commission, did not desire to acquire the piers.

Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.